Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 B.T.A. 813

Wayburn v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1935-06-26

1. Amounts received by petitioner from a corporation of which he was president for entertainment purposes held not taxable income to petitioner to the extent of the expenditures made in entertaining in behalf of the corporation. 2. Although petitioner was negligent in failing to maintain proper records and in failing to see that his income tax return was accurate, the evidence does not establish fraud with intent to evade tax. 3.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1935-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 1962 · most notably Louis Greenspon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (Three Cases). Anna Greenspon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1956), Greenspon v. Commissioner (1954)

6 federal appellate ·

1901935194019501960decided

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 →

Murdock,

¶1dissenting: The Commissioner has determined that $22,080.91 which the petitioner received in cash from a corporation in which he and his wife owned all of the stock was income to the petitioner. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that this amount was not income to him. He admits that he received thiq money and that he and his wife spent it, but he contends that it was not income to- him because it was drawn and used for the purpose of entertaining people from whom the corporation drew its business. In view of the fact that the corporation was a family affair, susceptible of easy control by the petitioner, and of the fur*819ther fact that the alleged expenditures might easily be confused with personal expenditures of the petitioner and his wife, the evidence should be closely scrutinized to determine with reasonable certainty the exact purpose for which the expenditures were made. The amount involved is a substantial one. The petitioner kept no records of the expenditures. There was no way in which the Commissioner could make any reasonable independent investigation either of the amount expended or of the exact purpose for which any particular amount was expended. Thus he could not form any independent opinion as to whether or not the petitioner was using all or any part of the amount for his own purposes. Purpose is a conclusion to be drawn from facts. A taxpayer has no right to expect that his judgment alone of the purpose for which such a large sum was expended will be determinative for Federal income tax purposes. His failure to produce evidence of the various expenditures in sufficient detail to enable the Board to determine to what extent the expenditures were for the benefit of the corporation and to what extent, if any, they were personal to the petitioner is, in my opinion, reason to sustain the determination of the deficiency made by the Commissioner.

Black, Seawell, and Matthews agree with this dissent.
/32/bta/813 · .json · Public domain