Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 T.C. 201

Draper v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided April 30, 1956

United States Tax Court · decided 1956-04-30

Petitioner's expenditures for counsel fees to prosecute a libel action solely for the protection of his income as a public entertainer, held, deductible as ordinary and necessary business expense. Held: deductible as ordinary and necessary business expense.

Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger · Kornhauser v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-04-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 1999

4 federal appellate ·

7019561960197019801990decided

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 →

¶1OPINION.

OppeR, Judge:

¶2The sole issue as the case is presented is whether petitioner’s expenditure for counsel fees as plaintiff in a libel action was personal and nondeductible or business and deductible. Where the primary purpose of litigation is to vindicate the personal reputation and character of a taxpayer, the proceeds have been held not to be taxable, C. A. Hawkins, 6 B. T. A. 1023, and the expenses of litigation not deductible. Robert Edward Kleinschmidt, 12 T. C. 921. Whether punitive damages even in a personal action would now be taxable we need not consider. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U. S. 426. Where, however, the cause for engaging counsel and the benefit sought is primarily the protection of petitioner’s business, the expense is an ordinary and necessary business expense and hence a deductible item. Waldo Salt, 18 T. C. 182; Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U. S. 467; Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U. S. 145. So stated, the issue becomes primarily one of fact. Commissioner v. Heininger, supra.

¶3We conclude on this record that petitioner’s concern was solely with his continued business success as a public performer. He sought to reestablish his reputation on the advice of his concert manager and attorneys whom he consulted. They and he were of the opinion that no other means was at hand by which to counteract the effect of the statements about him, the publication of which was apparently responsible for his loss of income. Petitioner testified that he was not motivated by personal reasons and there was no suggestion that his statements in this respect were false. On the entire record we have accordingly found as a fact that the attorneys’ fees in question were ordinary and necessary business expenses of petitioner’s occupation of giving dance recitals for the general public.

¶4Decision will be entered under Rule 50.

/26/tc/201 · .json · Public domain