Burnet v. Jones, 8952.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 8952.,8952. |
| Citation | 50 F.2d 14 |
| Parties | BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. JONES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Morton K. Rothschild, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Shelby S. Faulkner, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, on the brief), for petitioner.
Scott R. Timmons, of Carrollton, Mo. (S. J. Jones, of Carrollton, Mo., on the brief), for respondent.
Before STONE and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and WOODROUGH, District Judge.
This appeal is from an order of the United States Board of Tax Appeals redetermining the income taxes of S. J. Jones for the year 1922. The taxpayer is a lawyer engaged in the general practice at Carrollton, Mo. In 1917 he entered into a written contract with the Norborne Land Drainage Company of Carroll county, Mo., by the terms of which he was employed to render certain legal services connected with the organization of the drainage district and the sale of its bonds. The contract fixed his compensation on the basis of the amount of bonds that should be issued and sold. In March, 1920, a supplemental contract of employment was entered into between the parties for the stated purpose of making more definite and specific the understanding as to compensation. The contract did not change the character of the services to be rendered, and the services specified by these contracts were rendered and compensation therefor paid in accordance therewith. On the 29th of April, 1922, a new contract in writing was entered into, which provided that the respondent, with other named attorneys, should represent the district in all its litigation then pending and in which it was then interested and "to file all suits that may become necessary for and on behalf of said district and advise the board of supervisors of said district and the other officers of said district from time to time, and at all times said employment to continue up to the time that the works provided for in the plan for reclamation are completed and the contractors finally settled with, and until all litigation commenced by or against said party of the first part or its supervisors, during said period of time, is finally settled or determined." The contract provides for the compensation agreed upon. During the year 1922 the respondent received as compensation for services rendered to the drainage district $4,834.46.
The drainage district is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state of Missouri, organized under article 1, chapter 28, of the 1919 Revised Statutes of Missouri (sections 4378-4438). The services rendered consisted of advising the board of supervisors when requested, preparing and helping to prepare all legal proceedings on behalf of the defendant, defending all suits brought against it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. American Trucking Ass Ns
...Louisville, etc., R.R. v. Wilson, 138 U.S. 501, 11 S.Ct. 405, 34 L.Ed. 1023; Campbell v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 87 F.2d 128; Burnet v. Jones, 8 Cir., 50 F.2d 14; Burnet v. McDonough, 8 Cir., 46 F.2d 30 S. 1629, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 31 S. Doc. 152, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 352, § 304(a)(1).......
-
Howell v. Division of Employment Sec., Department of Labor & Indus. Relations of State
... ... U.S., ... 100 F.2d 909, l. c. 914 (C. C. A. 8); Burnet v ... Jones, 50 F.2d 14, l. c. 15 (C. C. A. 8); Burnet v ... McDonough, 46 F.2d 944, l. c. 945, ... ...
-
Howell, et al. v. Div. Of Empl. Secur.
...Section 4, page 264, Section 5, page 264, Section 8, page 266; In accord, Pickett, v. U.S., 100 F. 2d 909, l.c. 914 (C.C.A. 8); Burnet v. Jones, 50 F. 2d 14, l.c. 15 (C.C.A. 8); Burnet v. McDonough, 46 F. 2d 944, l.c. 945, 947 (C.C.A. 8); Rule 4, Canon of Ethics, of Missouri Supreme Court, ......
-
Pickett v. United States, 11229.
...work was not that of a mere employee of the Collector, but was that of an attorney. Relying upon the decision of this court in Burnet v. Jones, 8 Cir., 50 F.2d 14, the Court concluded that appellant had not made an overpayment of taxes and judgment of dismissal was entered. Appellant's cont......