Vandermade v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, that amounts paid to or on behalf of the principal petitioner by a California firm, to cover expenses incurred by him in moving his family and household effects to California, were paid pursuant to and as part of a new agreement for employment; and accordingly, that such amounts are includible in said petitioner's gross income. United States v. Woodall, 255 F. 2d 370 (C.A. 10), certiorari denied 358 U.S. 824, followed.
1Opinion of the Court
Pierce, Judge:
The respondent determined a deficiency in income tax against the petitioners with respect to the calendar year 1954, in the amount of $539.82.
The sole issue presented for decision is whether the amount of $2,557.04, paid in 1954 to or on behalf of petitioner Alan Yandermade by General Industrial Equipment Company of Palo Alto, California, as reimbursement for expenses incurred by him in transporting his family and moving their household effects to Palo Alto, is includible in his gross income for said year, as determined by respondent.
A second issue raised by the pleadings…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Commissioner v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Sherrill O. And Doris M. Woodall, Husband and Wife, United States of America v. Glenn S. And Margaret H. Mills, Husband and WifeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1958
- Cavanagh v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kobacker v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Ferebee v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Charles v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Eckels v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Ferebee v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.