Whitmore v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner held, on the facts, to have been domiciled in Arizona during all the years in controversy; held, further, returns for certain years are to be treated as separate returns of the income of petitioner and his wife, they being clearly intended as such, notwithstanding they were combined on a single return form.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Opper, Judge:
I
The parties are in virtual agreement as to the legal principles to be applied. They differ, of course, as to the factual conclusion. Respondent contends that petitioner was domiciled either in Pennsylvania or in New York during the years in issue and that consequently he may not avail himself of the community property provisions of the law of Arizona, which he claims as his domicile.
There seems to us little doubt that petitioner never acquired a New York domicile until after the period with which we are concerned. He visited New York first for a 2-week period during…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Emerzian v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Johnson v. HarveyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Petition of OganesoffDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hughes v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- City of Cleveland v. SurellaOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
- Bishop v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Ewell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Hughes v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.