Coombs v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The evidence does not establish that the Commissioner erred in including in the petitioner's income the total profits derived from a business during the years in question, which business was alleged to have been carried on by the petitioner and his wife as a partnership.
1Opinion of the Court
*1024OPINION.
Muedocic:
The question to be determined is whether the petitioner is liable for tax upon the total net income derived from the J. Howard Coombs Lumber Co. in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924; or whether his wife properly reported one-half of such income as taxable to’her. We will assume, as is contended by the petitioner, that the laws of New Jersey do not preclude husband and wife from entering into a valid agreement of partnership.
It is alleged in the petition, and recited in the written partnership contract, that the petitioner and his wife entered into an oral agreement of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Meehan v. ValentineSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Wild v. DavenportSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1886
- Cornell v. RedrowNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900
- Austin, Nichols & Co. v. NeilSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
- Jernee v. SimonsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Coombs v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930