Freedman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6327.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation92 F.2d 150
Docket NumberNo. 6327.,6327.
Decision Date23 August 1937

92 F.2d 150 (1937)


No. 6327.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

August 23, 1937.

Wm. A. Schnader, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John W. Townsend, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Norman D. Keller, and Howard P. Locke, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Herbert Pope, of Chicago, Ill., amicus curiæ.

Before BUFFINGTON and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the taxpayer from an order of the federal Tax Board assessing income tax against him, and the question involved is: "Was the annual salary of $3,000 received by petitioner in 1932 for services rendered as an attorney in the Department of Justice of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania exempt from the Federal Income tax?" The facts, which are not in dispute, are thus stated by the Tax Board:

"The department of justice and the department of banking are administrative divisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The head of the department of justice is the attorney general and the head of the department of banking is the secretary of banking, these offices being provided for by statute. The attorney general has statutory power `to appoint and fix the compensation of special deputy attorneys general, and special attorneys, to represent the Commonwealth, for any department, board, or commission thereof, in special work or in particular cases.' Purdon's Penna.Stats. title 71, § 296 71 P.S.Pa. § 296. The secretary of banking is by statute given broad powers over banks within the commonwealth. When it appears to him that a bank is in an unsafe or unsound condition he may, after notice and hearing and with the consent of the attorney general, take possession of the business and property of the bank; under certain conditions

92 F.2d 151
he may take possession without hearing and without the attorney general's consent. When he takes possession of a bank, he is vested with `all the rights, powers, and duties of a receiver appointed by any court of equity in this Commonwealth;' while in possession of the bank he is `the representative of the creditors' thereof. The banking law provides that, in the case of banks the property of which is in the possession of the secretary of banking, all expenses in connection with such possession and of continuing the business or of liquidation `shall first be payable out of the funds of' such bank `including the compensation of special deputies, assistants, and others employed by the secretary to assist him in such proceedings; the allowance of all such expenses to be subject to the approval of the court.' Purdon's Penna.Stats. title 7, §§ 29, 49 7 P.S. Pa. §§ 29, 49

"The petitioner was assigned to work under special deputy attorneys general in Philadelphia County in connection with legal matters pertaining to closed banks in that county. Such closed banks were being liquidated by the secretary of banking pursuant to statute. The petitioner's duties consisted of attempting to collect debts due such closed banks, rendering legal opinions to the deputy receivers in charge thereof, handling the legal matters for the banking department that came up from surrounding counties, prosecuting suits in court, consulting with creditors, depositors, and stockholders of closed banks concerning their claims, procuring substitute trustees for trust estates being administered by such banks, preparing, filing, and presenting accounts in the Orphans' Court, preparing data...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Helvering v. Therrell, s. 128
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1938
    ...Revenue, 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 873; McLoughlin v. Com'r of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 699; Freedman v. Com'r of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 92 F.2d 150, state the essential facts—not in dispute; make adequate references to the relevant statutory provisions; and cite numerous authorities. No.......
  • Alsop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6259.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 10 Septiembre 1937
    ...that it is "in lieu of alimony." In other words, by it, he wiped out his obligation to pay alimony. Economically it might have been 92 F.2d 150 a good or bad bargain, depending upon future events, but it was a chance which he felt justified in taking. The fact of his wife's remarriage was o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT