Coerver v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 80274.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 80274. |
| Citation | 36 T.C. 252 |
| Parties | ROBERT A. COERVER AND MARGARET M. COERVER, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William H. Foulk, Esq., and Robert W. Wakefield, Esq., for the petitioners.
Joseph S. Mangano, Esq., for the respondent.
Husband was employed in Wilmington, Delaware, where he maintained a residence, and his wife was employed in New York City, where she maintained an apartment. They filed a joint income tax return for each of the years 1956 and 1957. Held: The expenditures of the wife in New York City for rent, food, electricity, and other miscellaneous items, as well as her expenditures for train travel between New York City and Wilmington, are not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses on the joint returns. Such expenditures are nondeductible personal or living expenses. Sec. 262, I.R.C. 1954.
The respondent determined deficiencies in the petitioners' income tax for the years 1956 and 1957 in the respective amounts of $954.11 and $1,097.61. The only issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to deductions for travel expenses in the years 1956 and 1957 in the amounts of $2,806.22 and $3,306.67, respectively.
All of the facts have been stipulated and they are hereby incorporated by this reference.
Robert A. Coerver and Margaret M. Coerver, husband and wife, are residents of Wilmington, Delaware. They filed joint income tax returns for the years 1956 and 1957 with the district director of internal revenue for the district of Delaware, at Wilmington, Delaware.
Robert and Margaret were married on November 19, 1955, at which time Robert was employed in the engineering department of E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company (hereinafter called the duPont Company) in Wilmington, Delaware. He was first employed by the duPont Company in 1940, and in January 1945 he moved to Wilmington, where he has continued to maintain his residence throughout the years here involved. His compensation from the duPont Company in 1956 and 1957 was $21,007 and $20,356, respectively.
Margaret has been employed by the investment banking firm of Morgan, Stanley & Co. in New York City, as its receptionist, since February 1943. Her salary during the years 1956 and 1957 was $2,880 and $3,000, respectively, and in addition she received bonuses of $1,275 and $2,100 in the respective years 1956 and 1957. In connection with this employment, Margaret received the following additional benefits: (1) Life insurance in the amount of $8,000, with double indemnity for accidental death; (2) comprehensive medical expense benefits; (3) expanded Blue Cross and Blue Shield; and (4) the right to pension upon retirement at age 65 (or earlier after age 55 with the consent of the employer) equal to 1 1/2 percent of her annual salary (exclusive of bonus payments) multiplied by her years of service.
Margaret has maintained an apartment in New York City since 1946, and she continued to maintain this apartment after her marriage to Robert. During the years 1956 and 1957 she paid rent for this apartment in the amounts of $1,082.40 and $1,288.71, respectively. She occupied this apartment 159 nights in 1956 and 145 nights in 1957. During the years 1956 and 1957 Margaret incurred the following expenses in maintaining her New York apartment and other incidental expenses:
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦1956 ¦1957 ¦
+----------------------------------+-------+-------¦
¦Food ¦$622.00¦$618.00¦
+----------------------------------+-------+-------¦
¦Electricity ¦80.12 ¦73.98 ¦
+----------------------------------+-------+-------¦
¦Telephone (to and from Wilmington)¦161.50 ¦208.42 ¦
+----------------------------------+-------+-------¦
¦Taxi ¦206.00 ¦246.20 ¦
+----------------------------------+-------+-------¦
¦Tips and miscellaneous ¦60.00 ¦60.00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
During 1956 and 1957 Margaret spent 227 and 232 days, respectively, in attending to her duties in New York. She made 68 trips between Wilmington and New York by rail during 1956 at a cost of $594.20, and 90 trips during 1957 at a cost of $811.46.
During the years 1956 and 1957 Robert had no assignments by his employer of duty in New York City.
In the joint income tax returns filed by Robert and Margaret for 1956 and 1957, a deduction was claimed, as traveling expenses, for the expenditures (listed above) incurred by Margaret in New York for rent, railroad fares, taxi fares, food, electricity, telephone, and tips in the total amount of $2,806.22 in 1956 and $3,306.67 in 1957. Respondent disallowed these deductions in full with the explanation that they were personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benjamin v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Gaylord C. Peters, 51 T.C. 226 (1968). There are two taxpayers on a joint return; however, there is but a single income. Robert A. Coerver, 36 T.C. 252 (1961), affd. per curiam 297 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1962). Where married individuals file a joint return, the income reported does not reflect w......
-
Hantzis v. C. I. R., 80-1140
...is allowed."); Hammond v. Commissioner, 213 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1954); Foote v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1 (1976); Coerver v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 252 (1961). This is true even though the spouses file a joint return. Chwalow, supra, 470 F.2d at 478.12 The concurrence reaches the same result......
-
In re Mecka
...a non-debtor spouse is held jointly liable for any tax deficiencies. See In re WDH Howell, LLC , 294 B.R. at 618 (citing Coerver v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 252 (1961), aff'd per curiam, 297 F.2d 837 (3d Cir.1962) ). Additionally, "[a] joint return does not itself create equal property interes......
-
In re Wdh Howell, LLC, 01-50618.
...of one spouse into the income of the other, regardless of each spouse's potential liability. See Robert A. Coerver v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 36 T.C. 252, 1961 WL 1128(1961), aff'd. per curiam, 297 F.2d 837 (3d That ownership rights are not altered based on a joint filing is furth......