Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 B.T.A. 1374

Harris v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided March 14, 1928

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1928-03-14

INCOME. - Petitioner and his wife, domiciled in the State of California, entered into an agreement that the wife's salary should be her separate property. Held: that the wife may report her individual income in a separate return and that the Commissioner erred in including the wife's salary in petitioner's net income.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1928

Relies on Gassner v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-03-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1375OPINION.

Titos sell :

¶2The facts and evidence in this proceeding establish that petitioner and his wife agreed that the wife’s salary should be her separate property and that that agreement was carried out during the calendar year 1921. The Board has heretofore held in cases involving similar facts and circumstances arising in the State of California that the wife is entitled to report in a separate return her individual income. See Louis Gassner, 4 B. T. A. 1071.

¶3Anna Hershey Harris may report in a separate return her salary and bonus as her individual income and, that course having been followed by her, the respondent erred in including her salary and bonus in petitioner’s net income for the year 1921.

¶4Judgment will he entered upon W days' notice, pursuant to Rule 50.

/10/bta/1374 · .json · Public domain