Lynch v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The compensation of an individual as city engineer of certain California cities held to be subject to Federal income tax.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
MaRquette :
The respondent has determined the following deficiencies in income tax:
Year Deficiency
1923---$2, 258. 56
1924- 3,099.16
1925_ 124.07
1926- 1,554.08
The petitioner is an individual, with his office and place of business in the city of Los Angeles, California.
The only issue is whether the petitioner’s compensation as city engineer of certain California cities is subject to income tax. The facts are stipulated and the stipulation is made a part of this report. The following are the material facts:
Tbe cities of Compton, Ventura, and Los Angeles are, and were during the years 1923,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Tyler v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Willcutts v. BunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Pease v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Burges v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hall v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Lynch v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Ridgway v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Strauss v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937