Anderson v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner paid certain sums to his employer because his sale and purchase of stock constituted an apparent violation of sec. 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Held, petitioner's payment constituted ordinary and necessary business expense. William L. Mitchell, 52 T.C. 170 (1969), revd. 428 F. 2d 259 (C.A. 6, 1970), reaffirmed.
1Opinion of the Court
Tannenwald, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $21,897.64 in the petitioners’ income tax for the taxable year ending December 31, 1966. The only issue for our consideration is whether payments made by petitioner J ames E. Anderson to his employer, pursuant to an alleged violation of section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, constitute an ordinary and necessary expense of petitioner James E. Anderson’s business.
FINDINGS OE PACT
A stipulation of facts filed by the parties is incorporated herein as part of our findings of fact.
Petitioners James E. Anderson and Alice…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Arrowsmith v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. Skelly Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- John M. Trent and Lisa M. Trent v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Hale v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
- George P. Weddle and Bertha R. (Terris) Weddle v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Kolom v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Gould v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Shinefeld v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- James E. Anderson and Alice Anderson v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
- Jordan v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.