Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 T.C. 520

Robinson v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided December 31, 1968

United States Tax Court · decided 1968-12-31

Petitioner was a theatrical agent who during 1961, 1962, and 1963 visited bars and nightclubs in an effort to obtain contracts to represent… Held: Amount of deductions to which petitioner is entitled for travel and entertainment expenses in 1961 and 1962 determined under Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F. 2d 540 (C.A. 2, 1930), and respondent's determination of amount allowable as deduction for use of home for business entertainment sustained because of failure of proof by…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decision will be entered under Rule 50 · Decided 1968-12-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Andress v. Commissioner (1969), Rutz v. Commissioner (1976)

4 federal appellate ·

19019681970198019902000decided

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 →

Simpson, /.,

¶1concurring: I agree with the majority in allowing the taxpayer head-of-household treatment, but I wish to express my reasons for reaching that conclusion.

¶2In 1954, the law was changed to allow a taxpayer head-of-household treatment when he maintained his parents in a separate household. Our question is in what kind of household must the parent be maintained.

¶3In referring to the provisions relating to head-of-household tax treatment, the committee reports frequently use the term “home” as a synonym for “household.” H. Rept. No. 1337, to accompany H.R. 8300 (Pub. L. No. 591), 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5 (1954); S. Rept. No. 1622, to accompany H.R. 8300 (Pub. L. No. 591), 83d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 4, 5 (1954). Thus, Congress contemplated that the taxpayer could qualify for head-of-household treatment if he provided a home for his parents. But was the term “home” intended to refer only to a house or an apartment, or was it intended to also include sleeping rooms in such, places as nursing homes or homes for the aged ? I can perceive no reason for distinguishing between an efficiency apartment and a sleeping room. In some situations, the sleeping room might be the more suitable home for the parent — and the more burdensome for the taxpayer to provide. For these reasons I conclude that Congress intended to include rest home accommodations within the meaning of “household.”

Featherston and iRwiN, JJagree with this concurring opinion.
/51/tc/520 · .json · Public domain