Buckner v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The evidence does not establish that petitioner was an officer of the State of New York while serving as a special assistant attorney-general. Held, following Commissioner v. Murphy, 70 Fed.(2d) 790, and George Z. Medalie,30 B.T.A. 1283, that the compensation for such services is not exempt from Federal income tax.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Arundkll :
A deficiency of $7,500 in income tax asserted by the respondent for the year 1930 arises from his inclusion in petitioner’s income of $30,000 paid to him out of funds of the city of New York. Petitioner claims that the $30,000 was paid for services rendered as an officer of the State of New York; hence is exempt from Federal tax. Respondent has denied exemption. Whether petitioner was an officer of the state is the only issue.
The facts were stipulated at length and in detail, and we adopt the stipulation filed as our findings of fact. A summary of the salient facts will be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Petrogradsky Mejdunarodny Kommerchesky Bank v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- People v. ConnollyNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- People v. ConnollyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
3Cited by1 opinion
- Buckner v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934