Whitman v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Petitioner received a salary of $ 20,000 from Countess Mara, Inc., in 1943 and on her income tax return for that year claimed the benefits of section 107 to allocate this compensation over five prior years of service. The Commissioner disallowed application of section 107 to this sum.
Read the full summary
1. Petitioner received a salary of $ 20,000 from Countess Mara, Inc., in 1943 and on her income tax return for that year claimed the benefits of section 107 to allocate this compensation over five prior years of service. The Commissioner disallowed application of section 107 to this sum. Held, petitioner does not come within the provisions of section 107 because the salary she received in 1943 was in compensation for services rendered in that year alone. 2. A deduction for the payment of state income tax is not permissible in computing victory tax net income.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Hill, Judge:
The principal question in this case is whether section 107 of the Internal Eevenue Code, as amended,1 was applicable to the salary of $20,000 received by petitioner from Countess Mara, Inc., in 1943. If so, we must then decide whether compensation allocated to a prior year under section 107 is súbject to the forgiveness features of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943. A final question for decision is whether petitioner was entitled to deduct $356.35 she paid the State of New York as income tax in computing her victory tax net income for 1943.
On her tax return for 1943…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
3Cited by7 opinions
- Roy R. Brooks and Betty B. Brooks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Connecticut Marine Boiler Works v. Secretary Maritime Com.United States Tax Court · 1951
- Kelsey v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- Drysdale v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Kazan v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.