Gillespie v. Commissioner

Decided November 11, 1925

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1925-11-11

Where a church employed a minister and, in addition to a stipulated salary, furnished him a dwelling house which it rented directly from the owner, and the rent, as it became due, was paid to the… Held: that the rent was received by the minister as agent for the church and not as increased salary, and hence it was unnecessary to consider whether it was income exempt from taxation under section 213(b)(11) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1954

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-11-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *1318OPINION.

James:

¶2Section 213(b) (11) of the Revenue Act of 1921, reads as follows:

That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in section 233) the term “gross income”—

… …

(b) Does not include the following items, which shall be exempt from taxation under this title:

… …

(11) The rental value of a dwelling house and appurtenances thereof furnished to a minister of the gospel as part of his compensation.

¶3It is clear from the foregoing that the taxpayer in this appeal, in receiving the sum of $740 as rental for his parsonage, was acting as agent merely for his church and did not receive the amount here in question as increased salary. Such being the.case, it is not necessary to consider whether payments in commutation of a manse would be income not clearly within the exempting clause. The taxpayer is clearly within it, and the deficiency determined by the Commissioner must be disallowed.