Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 B.T.A. 950

Upham v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1929-06-07

Traveling expenses of the petitioner in attending medical conventions constitute legal deductions from gross income.

Relies on Silverman v. Commissioner · Shutter v. Commissioner · Squier v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-06-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1984

3 federal appellate ·

501929193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*951OPINION.

Smith:

¶2The petitioner claims the deduction of the traveling expenses paid in 1920 and 1921 either as ordinary and necessary expenses or as contributions to the corporations with which he was connected. It is alleged by the petitioner that the amounts of the traveling expenses did not in either year exceed 15 per cent of his taxable income. It is, therefore, unimportant to determine whether they were ordinary and necessary expenses of the petitioner’s business or whether they were contributions. So far as the year 1920 is concerned we think that they were legal deductions from gross income within the decisions of the Board in Marion D. Shutter, 2 B. T. A. 23; Alexander Silverman, 6 B. T. A. 1328; Cecil M. Jack, 13 B. T. A. 726; and J. Bentley Squier, 13 B. T. A. 1223. The petitioner was apparently entitled to reimbursement for traveling expenses of 1921. He did not, however, elect to claim reimbursement. The amounts constituted contributions to the American Institute of Homeopathy. The evidence shows that this was a corporation organized and operated exclusively for scientific or educational purposes and that no part of its net earnings inured to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual. The amounts paid, therefore, constitute a legal deduction from gross income under section 214(a) (11) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

¶3Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

/16/bta/950 · .json · Public domain