Burges v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 and Hudspeth County Conservation District No. 1, held to be political subdivision of the State of Texas. 2. Petitioner, retained as an attorney for such districts on an annual basis, held to be an employee of such districts and his compensation exempt under section 1211 of the Revenue Act of 1926.
1Opinion of the Court
*276OPINION.
Phillips :
The petitioner contends that he was an employee of the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, and the Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1, which were political subdivisions of the State of Texas, and that the salary received by him from these districts is exempt from taxation. The *277respondent denies these contentions and treated the salaries received from those districts as taxable income.
Section 52 of article 3 of the constitution of Texas adopted November 8, 1904, authorizes, under legislative provision, “ any defined district now or…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Wharton County Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. HigbeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Ward County Irrigation District No. 1Texas Supreme Court · 1923
- Parker v. El Paso County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Peyton Creek Irr. Dist. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wood v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Burges v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Moisseiff v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Wood v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934