Kirtland v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Taxpayer, who was sole support for divorced wife and their two minor children over whom he in fact exercised family control, was head of a family within section 25:b):1) of the Revenue Act of 1934.
1Opinion of the Court
*961OPINION.
Murdock:
The Revenue Act of 1934 in section 25 (b) (1) allows a single person an exemption of $1,000, but allows “a head of a family” an exemption of $2,500. The term “head of a family” is not defined in the statute, but it is defined in article 25-4 of Regulations 86 as “an individual who actually supports and maintains in one household one or more individuals who are closely connected with him by blood relationship, relationship by marriage, or by adoption, and whose right to exercise family control and provide for these dependent individuals is based upon some moral or legal…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. FuquaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
- Miller v. GlennDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1942
- Goe v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- Kirtland v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1939
- Mahoney v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.