Henry v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. On the evidence held that husband and wife were domiciled in the State of Washington during the taxable year. 2. Under the statutes of Washington a wife has a vested interest in community property, and where the husband reported one-half of the income from community property as taxable to him the Commissioner is precluded by section 1212 of the Revenue Act of 1926 from taxing the whole of such income to the husband.
1Opinion of the Court
*132OPINION.
ARUndeld :
-The evidence satisfies us that the petitioner’s domicile was in the State of Washington during the calendar year 1923. When the petitioner went to California he had no intention of remaining, and during and prior to the period here involved he had not abandoned his intention of returning to Washington. The general rule as to loss of domicile at one place and the acquisition at another is stated in 9 E. C. L. 542, as follows:
Tile general rule is that domicil is changed from one place to another, or one state to another, only by the abandonment by a person of his first place…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schramm v. SteeleWashington Supreme Court · 1917
- Marston v. RueWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Holyoke v. Jackson, Washington Territory1882
- Parker v. ParkerWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- Stevens v. Naches State BankWashington Supreme Court · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Battleson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Brittingham v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Henry v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927