Miller v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held, that during 1920 the petitioner was not domiciled in Texas but was domiciled in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico. 2. Held, that under the laws of petitioner's domicile during 1920 the wife had vested interest in the community property and under section 1212 of the Revenue Act of 1926 separate or community returns filed by them were proper. 3. Where petitioner filed a joint or combined return and at the same time he and his wife filed separate or community returns,…
Read the full summary
1. Held, that during 1920 the petitioner was not domiciled in Texas but was domiciled in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico. 2. Held, that under the laws of petitioner's domicile during 1920 the wife had vested interest in the community property and under section 1212 of the Revenue Act of 1926 separate or community returns filed by them were proper. 3. Where petitioner filed a joint or combined return and at the same time he and his wife filed separate or community returns, all of which were transmitted by a letter wherein the petitioner expressed a belief that he was entitled to the benefits…
1Opinion of the Court
*1083OPINION.
Trammell:
The petitioner contends that the respondent erred in accepting the “ original or combined ” return and rejecting the separate or community returns. In support of this contention the petitioner urges that in 1920 he had a domicile either in the State of Texas or in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, and in whichever State his domicile may be determined to have been he was entitled to file a return on a community basis, since there existed in each State a community system of holding property which vested in his wife the right to one-half of his income from the time such income…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928