Opinion

Primuth v. Commissioner

  • 54 T.C. 374
  • 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 199
Court
United States Tax Court
Filed
Mar 2, 1970
Status
Published
Author
Featherston
On the bench
Sterrett,Tannenwald,Forrester,Fay,Dawson,Simpson,Tannenwald,Featherston,Fay,Irwin,Tietjens,Drennen,Withey,Atkins,Hoyt
Cited by
345 cases

employee held to be in a trade or business for purposes of section 162

How later courts described this case

  • employee held to be in a trade or business for purposes of section 162
  • employee held to be in a trade or business for purposes of sec. 162
  • fee in order to secure employment held deductible

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FeatherstoN, /., concurring: I agree with, the conclusion reached by the majority, but I would decide the case on a narrower ground.

Exercising the authority conferred by section 7805(a) to prescribe “all needful rules .and regulations,” the Commissioner issued Rev. Rul. 60-228, 1960- 1 C.B. 57 , stating that “The Internal Revenue Service will continue to allow deductions for fees paid to employment agencies for securing employment.” The Court has found that petitioner paid the fee to Chusid for securing employment for him. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the ruling. I find nothing in the history of the Commissioner’s administrative handling of this problem to show that Rev. Rui. 60-228 was intended to be limited to contingent fee situations.

Fat and IrwiN, //., agree with this concurring opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.