Hall v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Petitioner, who was designated county architect by a board of county commissioners, was compensated by the county on the basis of completed work. He maintained his own office, employed his own assistants, and, when not engaged in work for the county, accepted other employment. Held, compensation received from county is not exempt from Federal income tax.
1Opinion of the Court
*957OPINION.
Mellott:
Petitioner contends that the compensation received by him from Cook County is exempt from the Federal income tax. He argues that his “office, position or place of employment” as county architect is an integral part of the board’s regular establishment for the management of the affairs of the county and one of the means by which it exercises its sovereignty or performs its usual and essential governmental functions. If it is, then the exemption must be recognized, for the state must be “left free *958from undue interference” by the Federal Government in order that it may administer…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Collector v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hall v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Strauss v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937