Bayless v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, that the provisions of sec. 1(b)(2) 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as in effect during the years in issue. Note that the section number (but not the substance) of sec. 1(b)(2) was changed to sec. 2(b) by the Tax Reform Act of 1969. [Definition of head of household] which require that a taxpayer be unmarried and that his child or children live with him are not unconstitutional.
1Opinion of the Court
John A. Bayless, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Bayless v. Commissioner
Docket No. 8263-71
United States Tax Court
61 T.C. 394; 1973 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 1; 61 T.C. No. 44;
December 27, 1973, Filed
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Held, that the provisions of sec. 1(b)(2) 1 [Definition of head of household] which require that a taxpayer be unmarried and that his child or children live with him are not unconstitutional.
John A. Bayless, pro se.
Martin F. Klotz, for the respondent.
Hall, Judge.
HALL
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Bolling v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.