Harlan v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District was organized for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a bridge over the Golden Gate and to that end was granted power to levy taxes and fix tolls. These functions were governmental. During the taxable year the petitioner was an officer of the District and his salary, as such, is exempt from Federal income tax.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
MaRquette:
The respondent has determined a deficiency in income tax for the year 1929 of $259.43. In his petition the petitioner asserts that respondent erred in including in gross income (1) his compensation as attorney for the Marin Municipal Water District; and (2) his compensation as attorney for the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, hereinafter referred to as the District. At the hearing counsel for the petitioner stated that he would not press the first issue for the reason that the Board had determined it against petitioner in so far as it involved his compensation for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Moisseiff v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Bettman v. WarwickCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901
- Ogden v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Rand v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Harlan v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Jeffries v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1938
- Platt v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937
- Strauss v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937