Shoenhair v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Held, that under the laws of Arizona an agreement between husband and wife that the husband's income from his earnings and investments would be and remain his separate property, was valid and that, therefore, under authority of Helvering v. Hickman, 70 Fed.(2d) 985, the husband's earnings from the practice of law constituted his separate income taxable solety to him.
1Opinion of the Court
*578OPINION.
Tyson :
The petitioner contends that her agreement with her husband was valid under the laws of Arizona; that such agreement abrogated the community interest she would otherwise have had under those laws in her husband’s earnings; and that his earnings therefore constituted his separate income, taxable solely to him under section 22 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936, citing, among numerous other cases, Helvering v. Hickman, 70 Fed. (2d) 985; Van Every v. Commissioner, 108 Fed. (2d) 650; certiorari denied, 309 U. S. 689; and Sparkman v. Commissioner, 112 Fed. (2d) 774.
The respondent admits…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Poe v. SeabornSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Goodell v. KochSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Baldwin v. BaldwinArizona Supreme Court · 1937
- Schofield v. GoldArizona Supreme Court · 1924
- Lincoln Fire Insurance Co. of New York v. BarnesArizona Supreme Court · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commissioner v. HarmonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1943
- Beall v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Nutt v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Beall v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Commissioner v. HarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.