Legal Opinion

Adams v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided September 25, 1941No. Docket No. 103197Published

Held, that the sole or principal support of a first cousin or other individual of a more remote degree of blood relationship does not entitle the taxpayer to the exemption of a "head of a family."

1Opinion of the Court

MARY B. ADAMS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

Adams v. Commissioner

Docket No. 103197.

United States Board of Tax Appeals

45 B.T.A. 193; 1941 BTA LEXIS 1164;

September 25, 1941, Promulgated

Held, that the sole or principal support of a first cousin or other individual of a more remote degree of blood relationship does not entitle the taxpayer to the exemption of a "head of a family."

George E. Hamilton, Jr., Esq., and John L. Hamilton, Esq., for the petitioner.

E. L. Corbin, Esq., for the respondent.

KERN

This case involves deficiencies in income tax in the following…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Welch v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Tracy v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1939
  3. Howard v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940
  4. Adams v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API