James v. United States, 1383.
Decision Date | 23 July 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 1383.,1383. |
Parties | George Harvey JAMES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Eli Livierato, Attorney at Law, Reno, Nev., for plaintiff.
Howard W. Babcock, U. S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for defendant.
This is an action wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover from the United States the sum of $1,302.38, being the principal amount of taxes paid on allegedly exempt items, plus $278.13 interest. The government denies that this sum of money was illegally and erroneously assessed and collected. Jurisdiction is conceded.
The pretrial order, as it relates to "admitted facts", states as follows:
The pretrial order concludes as follows: "The following issue of law, fact and no others, remains to be litigated upon the trial:
We point out that personal and living expenses are not deductible under Section 23(a) (1), so if plaintiff is to prevail he must bring himself within the exemptive provisions of Section 23(a) (1) (A), and the burden is on him to show, first, that he had maintained a home in Reno, Nevada, during the year 1953; second, that the nature of his business or calling required that he be away from his home; third, that by reason thereof he was caused to incur traveling expense and the cost of meals and lodging while away from home; and fourth, that the expenses for which the exemption is claimed were "ordinary and necessary."
As a general proposition tax statutes are construed in favor of the taxpayer, but exemptive provisions being matters of exception and of legislative grace, are always construed strictly against the taxpayer—which is the general rule of construction applied to all exceptions to a general statute.
Congress did not exempt the usual living expenses of the taxpayer. We all share that burden equally. While the government admits that there is little or no legislative history behind these sections, particularly as to the travel deduction provision, it would appear that Congress must have reasoned in this manner: No person is permitted to deduct living expenses generally, and ordinarily people are employed in the immediate vicinity of their home. However, there are certain employments which require the taxpayer to be and remain away from his home for extended intervals of time, during which period he is incurring additional and duplicitous expenses; that in order to equalize the burden between the "home" working person and the "away from home" working person an exemption should be granted as to the extent of travel expense, meals and lodging incurred by the "away from home" taxpayer to the extent that they are the ordinary and necessary expenses, incident to the "away from home" employment.
In the list of the foregoing let us examine plaintiff's position. He was engaged in selling the products of several...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sansone v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...162(a)(2) allows a ‘special deduction to mitigate the burden which this taxpayer carries.’ Harvey v. Commissioner, supra; James v. United States, 176 F.Supp. 270, 272. The petitioner during the taxable year was not under the burden of such double expenses. In Commissioner v. Flowers, supra,......
-
Harvey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 67596.
...the burden between the taxpayer whose employment requires business travel and the taxpayer whose employment does not. James v. United States, 176 F.Supp. 270. Consideration had been given to petitioner's contention that the expenses in question come within section 23(a)(1)(A) even though it......
-
Herren v. United States
...Co. v. United States, 243 F. Supp. 42 (M.D.Fla.1965), aff'd per curiam on opinion below, 360 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1966); James v. United States, 176 F.Supp. 270 (D.Nev.1959), aff'd 308 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1962). A person claiming to fall within an exception to a statute has the burden of clear......
-
Kern v. Granquist
...question, being in the nature of an exception in favor of the taxpayer, is to be strictly construed against such person. James v. United States, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 270; Korherr v. Bumb, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 157; Vondermuhll v. Helvering, 1935, 64 App.D.C. 137, 75 F.2d 656; Cornell v. Coyne......