Wittschen v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A California utility district, organized by vote of the people to construct aqueduct lines and reservoirs for the purpose of supplying water to the district, held not engaged in essential governmental functions, and salary paid by it to an attorney is not exempt from Federal income tax.
1Opinion of the Court
*50OPINION.
McMahon :
In the petition in this case it was alleged in the fifth paragraph, among other things, that the petitioner was an officer of the East Bay Municipal District and the district was a political subdivision of the State of California engaged in governmental functions. The respondent in his answer admitted all the allegations of the fifth paragraph except that the East Bay Municipal Utility District was a political subdivision of the State of California engaged in governmental functions, which was denied.
The only question raised by the pleadings therefore is whether the district…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- South Carolina v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Collector v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wanless Iron Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Wood v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Halsey v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Citizens Water Works, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935
- Halsey v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.