# Memorandum in Opposition — Wolfe v. Commissioner > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_1615%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Memorandum in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 385 U.S. 838 ## Text BLANK PAGE on the Suprenné Court of the Gnited States OcToBER TERM, 1966 No. 364 EvLpon E. Wore AND Sara A. WOLFE, PETITIONERS . _ Vv. . CoMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE On. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT.OF APPBALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUEEIA CIRCUIT MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION Petitioner,’ a career Civil Service employee of the United States Bureau of Public Roads, was sent to Tran to.work on a road building project. His salary was paid by the United States, which was-reimbursed by Iran.. In-general, the Internal Revenue Code ex- empts from’ taxation income earned by an American citizen who. has ‘worked outside the United States for at least 17 out of 18 consecitive months. Code ', 4 911(a)(2).. Excepted from the scope of this ex- emption are “amounts paid by the United States or . any agency thereof.”” Ibid. If, as the court of ap- 1Mrs. Wolfe is » party ‘only because she and her husband filed a joint. return. Mr. Wolfe will be referred to as petitioner. . 228-651—66 : *- a ; ae peals concluded, petitioner’s salary earned in Iran -~ was “paid bx the United States’? within the mean- ing of §911(a)(2), it is mes, otherwise, it is exempt. That the salary v was, siketatee “paid by the United States’? is undisputed. This should. have ended the matter; but petitioner asserts that there is “uncer- tainty’’ in the “interpretation” of the statute (Pet. 4), and that the phrase “paid by’’ as used therein | “refers to the entity which bears the economic burden of salary payment’? (Pet. 5)—in this instance, presumably, Iran. The majority of the court of ap- peals, in rejecting these contentions below, concluded (Pet. 24): No such distinction based on. reimbursement to the Government has béen noted in any com- mittee report or similar legislative history. If interjected into the tax law it, would create in- vidious discriminations’ among the U.S. Government employees assigned for. service abroad, dependent on adventitious factors hav-_ 7 ing nothing to do with their employment rela- tionship with the Government. or rights to compensation from the Government. If anything need be added.to the analysis (Pet..21— 24) which led to this conclusion, we would suggest that this. Court has repeatedly rejected. efforts to- read. “economie burden” into the law in other, not unrelated, tax contexts,” The majority below quite 2 See, ¢.g., Maximov v. United States, 373 U.S. 49, 52; Biddle v. Commissioner, 302-U.S. 573, 5815. Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 26-27; and see also such intergovernmental immunity cases as Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v.. Texas Co. 336 US. 342, fy