McDonald v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Citation1 T.C. 738
Decision Date10 March 1943
Docket NumberDocket No. 109104.
PartiesMICHAEL F. MCDONALD, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
CourtUnited States Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Petitioner was appointed judge to fill an unexpired term. At the ensuing primary and general elections, he ran for election to a full term. He expended certain amounts in his own behalf and he also contributed funds to a political committee. The other candidates also contributed the amounts specified by the committee. Held, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction under section 23(a)(1), (A) or (a)(2), as amended, or section 23(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. Frederick E. S. Morrison, Esq., and John W. Bodine, Esq., for the petitioner.

Myron W. Winer, Esq., for the respondent.

The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $2,506.77 for the taxable year ended December 31, 1939. The sole adjustment contested by petitioner is the disallowance of a deduction of $13,017.27 which petitioner expended as ‘re-election expenses.‘

FINDINGS OF FACT.

The petitioner is an individual residing at 6 Brown Street, Ashley, Pennsylvania. He filed his individual income tax return for the calendar year 1939 with the collector of internal revenue for the twelfth district of Pennsylvania. Petitioner kept his books on the cash receipts and disbursements basis, and his return for the taxable year 1939 was so prepared.

Petitioner is a lawyer, admitted to the bar of the State of Pennsylvania. He was appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to fill an unexpired term as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the Eleventh Judicial District of Pennsylvania, which district is co-extensive with Luzerne County. The compensation paid to petitioner as judge was $12,000 per year. At the time of his appointment, petitioner agreed to be a candidate for the full 10-year term beginning January 1, 1940. He was a candidate to succeed himself in both the primary and the general elections of 1939. He was defeated in the general election.

In order to get the support of the Democratic organization of Luzerne County, petitioner had to pay the amount ‘assessed‘ by the subcommittee of the Democratic Party. Each of the candidates gave the treasurer authority to spend his contribution. The expenditures from the fund were principally on behalf of all the candidates. In addition to such contributions made by petitioner in the amount of $8,000, he expended on his own behalf $5,017.27 for advertising, traveling, and other expenses in connection with his campaign. He received a contribution of $500 from his son for the purpose of defraying part of his campaign expenditures.

All facts stipulated but not expressly found herein are incorporated by reference.

OPINION.

HILL, Judge:

The sole issue of this proceeding is whether or not petitioner is entitled to a deduction for his ‘re-election expenses,‘ either as a business expense, as a loss suffered in a transaction entered into for profit, or as a nontrade or nonbusiness expense.

The Commissioner denied the deduction claimed in petitioner's return as a business expense on the ground that it was not an ordinary and necessary expense of carrying on a trade or business. On brief, he contends that it is not deductible under any of the sections relied upon by petitioner.

Petitioner first contends that he was a judge and was running for re-election. Thus, he contends that he was carrying on a trade or business of being a judge and he should be allowed his ‘re-election expenses‘ as an expense of that trade or business. He seeks to distinguish his case from David A. Reed, 13 B.T.A. 513; reversed on another issue, 34 Fed.(2d) 263, which in turn was reversed sub nom. Lucas v. Reed, 281 U.S. 699.

However, the mere fact that petitioner was already an office holder and was running for re-election in no wise distinguishes the instant case from the Reed case, supra. The expenses incurred had nothing whatever to do with the performance of petitioner's functions as a judge. ‘Running for office of and within itself is not a business carried on for the purpose of a livelihood or profit, but is only preparatory to the actual deriving of income from a subsequent holding of the office, if elected.‘ David A. Reed, supra, 524. See Charles H. McGlue, 45 B.T.A. 761, 769. Petitioner is not entitled to a deduction by virtue of section 23(a)(1)(A), Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

Petitioner's next contention is equally without merit. He did not suffer a loss in a transaction entered into for profit so that he would be entitled to a deduction under section 23(e)(2). He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Seaman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 12, 1946
    ... ... , the sister, charged that the Commissioner of 156 F.2d 721 Internal Revenue in computing her income tax liability for 1936, erroneously added ... In McDonald v. Commissioner, 323 U.S. 57, 61, 65 S.Ct. 96, 89 L.Ed. 68, 155 A.L.R ... ...
  • Martino v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • September 23, 1974
    ...leading authority for this position is McDonald v. Commissioner, 323 U.S. 57 (1944), affirming 139 F.2d 400 (C.A. 3, 1943), affirming 1 T.C. 738 (1943), where the Supreme Court held that a State court judge serving an interim appointment could not deduct either a party assessment or campaig......
  • Medd v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4576-63-4580-63
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • October 22, 1968
    ... ... position was taken for the purpose of protecting the Government revenue ...         The above-stated present position of respondent ...         The words "sale" or "exchange" as used in the Internal Revenue Code must be given their ordinary meanings. Helvering v. Flaccus ... Commissioner 43-1 USTC ¶ 9486, 319 U. S. 590 (1943); McDonald v. Commissioner 44-2 USTC ¶ 9516, 323 U. S. 57 (1944), affirming Dec ... ...
  • Donald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1944
    ...him of a deficiency of $2,506.77. In appropriate proceedings before the Tax Court of the United States that Court sustained the Commissioner, 1 T.C. 738, and its decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 139 F.2d 400. We brought the case here, 321 U.S. 762......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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