Heath v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held, that the interest on bonds issued under the California Improvement Act of 1911, as amended, and under the California Improvement Act of 1915, as amended, is not includable in petitioner's gross income for tax purposes, since the bonds are obligations of the city under section 22(b)(4) of the Revenue Act of 1934, although payable exclusively out of a special fund; following Milo W. Bekins et al., Executors,38 B.T.A. 604. 2. Held, that the interest on bonds issued…
Read the full summary
1. Held, that the interest on bonds issued under the California Improvement Act of 1911, as amended, and under the California Improvement Act of 1915, as amended, is not includable in petitioner's gross income for tax purposes, since the bonds are obligations of the city under section 22(b)(4) of the Revenue Act of 1934, although payable exclusively out of a special fund; following Milo W. Bekins et al., Executors,38 B.T.A. 604. 2. Held, that the interest on bonds issued under the Road District Improvement Act of California of 1907, as amended, is likewise tax-exempt, since the bonds,…
1Opinion of the Court
*1132OPINION.
Keen :
The only question involved is whether the interest received on certain California municipal and county bonds was exempt from taxation as income under section 22 (b) (4) of the Revenue Act of 1934 as being interest upon the obligations of a state or its political subdivision. Treasury Regulations 86, article 22 (b) (4)-l, set out in the margin,4 indicates the Treasury’s interpretation of the section. The bonds fall into two categories and we shall so consider them.
Interest on bonds issued under the California Improvement Act of 1911, as amended; and under the California…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Heath v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1938