Legal Opinion

Simpson v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided June 27, 1933No. Docket Nos. 62015, 62016PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Compensation paid to a law firm by a municipality for legal services is subject to Federal taxation.

1Opinion of the Court

*558OPINION.

Smith :

The petitioners contend that:

* * * E. A. Simpson, was an employé, or an officer, of tbe City of Amarillo; that the compensation paid to him and his law partners was paid by the City of Amarillo in the exercise of essential governmental functions.

There is no provision in the Revenue Act of 1928 comparable to section 1211 of the Revenue Act of 1926, which exempted from the tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1924 and prior revenue acts the compensation of an officer or employee of a state or political subdivision thereof. See Leland Powers, Executor, 26 B.T.A. 1381.

The law firm of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Haft v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
  2. Powers v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Simpson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API