¶1dissenting: As I understand the facts, Dodson held a separate power of attorney from each subscriber to the so-called reciprocal exchange, authorizing him under certain specified conditions to exchange indemnity with other subscribers. In consideration of Dodson defraying certain expenses incident to conducting the business including compensation for his services, he was authorized by the powers of attorney to deduct 30 per cent of all monies received by him from the subscribers. This provision for compensation was never abrogated, but appeared in all the powers of attorney issued during the successive years before us for consideration. The fact that Dodson saw fit to leave a portion of his compensation in the business, which business was essentially his own, can not alter the fact that' the 30 per cent received by him was his own at all times and constituted an item of gross income to be returned for taxation. When one receives income, his election to dispose of it one way or another or leave it in his business does not make it other than taxable income.
21 B.T.A. 757
Howell v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided December 17, 1930
United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1930-12-17
1. The decedent was manager of an insurance Exchange and through powers of attorney issued to him by subscribers thereof he was authorized to deduct 30 per cent of all moneys received by said… Held: although 30 per cent of premiums was set aside in each of the taxable years, the undrawn amounts did not constitute income to the decedent, either actually or constructively, during the years in controversy. 2.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1930-12-17
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1975
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 →