History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pollock v. Commissioner
10 B.T.A. 1297
B.T.A.
1928
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

*1300OPINION.

SteRNhagen:

The very full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances under which these expenditures were made establishes clearly that they were ordinary and necessary expenses paid by the petitioner jn carrying on the occupation in which he was engaged for livelihood. The amount is expressly limited to such as was spent, not for his personal convenience or enjoyment, but for account of his office and which he had no election but to make. His income depended on them — at least the continuance of his naval standing, from which his income was derived, required them and would have been seriously jeopardized had he failed to make them. We are of opinion that the amount is a proper deduction. See D. C. Jackling, 9 B. T. A. 312.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Case Details

Case Name: Pollock v. Commissioner
Court Name: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Date Published: Mar 12, 1928
Citation: 10 B.T.A. 1297
Docket Number: Docket No. 11980.
Court Abbreviation: B.T.A.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.