United States v. Patrick, No. 22

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHARLAN
Citation83 S.Ct. 618,372 U.S. 53,9 L.Ed.2d 580
Decision Date18 February 1963
Docket NumberNo. 22
PartiesUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Talbot PATRICK et al. Re

372 U.S. 53
83 S.Ct. 618
9 L.Ed.2d 580
UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v.

Talbot PATRICK et al.

No. 22.
Reargued Dec. 6, 1962.
Decided Feb. 18, 1963.

Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Robert M. Ward, Rock Hill, S.C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question, similar to that decided today in No. 21, United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39, 83 S.Ct. 623, as to the deductibility of certain legal fees paid by the re-

Page 54

spondent to his attorneys and attorneys representing his wife in connection with divorce proceedings instituted by the wife. In a suit for refund contesting the Commissioner's disallowance of such a deduction claimed in the taxpayer's 1956 federal income tax return, the United States District Court for the Western District of South Carolina held these expenses to be deductible under § 212(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 186 F.Supp. 48, the Court of Appeals affirmed, 288 F.2d 292, and we granted certiorari on the Government's petition, 368 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d 22.2

In 1955 respondent's wife3 sued for divorce, alleging adultery on the part of her husband. Extended negotiations by the attorneys for both parties resulted in a property settlement agreement, and thereafter respondent filed his answer to the complaint neither admitting nor denying the allegations of adultery. Respondent did not testify at the trial. The South Carolina divorce court granted the wife an absolute divorce, approved the property settlement agreement, and in accordance therewith ordered respondent to pay the attorneys' fees for both parties.

At the time of these proceedings, respondent was president of the Herald Publishing Company in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and editor of the newspaper published by it. He owned 28% of the corporation's outstanding stock, his wife owned 28%, their oldest son, Hugh Patrick,

Page 55

owned 9%, and the remaining 35% was held in trusts for Hugh and the parties' two minor children. The real property on which the Herald Company was situated was owned by respondent and his wife, the former having an 80% undivided interest and the latter a 20% undivided interest. The couple also owned two houses. In addition, each independently owned diversified securities and other assets of substantial value.

The property settlement agreement recited that 'by virtue of this agreement a final and lump settlement has been made of any and all rights whatsoever * * * concerning the matter of support, separate maintenance, alimony or any financial obligation of whatsoever sort due to (the wife) * * * on account of and growing out of the marital relationship of the parties * * *.' Besides provisions for the custody and support of the minor children and a provision giving one of the two houses to each of the parties, certain arrangements were made concerning the respective interests in the newspaper properties. Respondent delivered to his wife high-quality securities worth $112,000, the agreed value of her 28% of the publishing company stock, which she transferred to him subject to the condition that such stock should go to their three children in the the event of his death or a sale of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 practice notes
  • Rosenthal v. Commissioner, Docket No. 67848
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 30 novembre 1970
    ...J. Fleischman; he relies upon United States v. Gilmore 63-1 USTC k 9285, 372 U. S. 39, and United States v. Patrick 63-1 USTC k 9286, 372 U. S. 53; and he contends that the facts here are distinguishable from the facts in Ruth K. Upon consideration of the evidence (and lack of proof), and t......
  • Marcello v. CIR, No. 23152
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 29 août 1967
    ...86 S.Ct. 1118, 16 L.Ed.2d 185; Gilmore v. United States, 1962, 372 U.S. 39, 83 S.Ct. 623, 9 L.Ed.2d 570; United States v. Patrick, 1963, 372 U.S. 53, 83 S.Ct. 618, 9 L.Ed.2d 580; United States v. Omaha Live Stock Traders Exchange, 8 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 749; Finger v. United States, D.S.C.19......
  • United States v. Gilmore, No. 21
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 18 février 1963
    ...18. Besides the present case see to the same effect, e.g., Patrick v. United States, 288 F.2d 292 (C.A.4th Cir.), No. 22, reversed today, 372 U.S. 53, 83 S.Ct. 618; Owens v. Commissioner, 273 F.2d 251 (C.A.5th Cir.); Bowers v. Commissioner, 243 F.2d 904 (C.A.6th Cir.); McMurtry v. United St......
  • Gale v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4448-97.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 27 février 2002
    ...fees incurred in connection with petitioner's divorce generally would not be deductible. United States v. Patrick [63-1 USTC ¶ 9286], 372 U.S. 53 (1963); United States v. Gilmore [63-1 USTC ¶ 9285], 372 U.S. 39 (1963); see also sec. 262 (disallowing deductions for personal, living, and fami......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
73 cases
  • Rosenthal v. Commissioner, Docket No. 67848
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 30 novembre 1970
    ...J. Fleischman; he relies upon United States v. Gilmore 63-1 USTC k 9285, 372 U. S. 39, and United States v. Patrick 63-1 USTC k 9286, 372 U. S. 53; and he contends that the facts here are distinguishable from the facts in Ruth K. Upon consideration of the evidence (and lack of proof), and t......
  • Marcello v. CIR, No. 23152
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 29 août 1967
    ...86 S.Ct. 1118, 16 L.Ed.2d 185; Gilmore v. United States, 1962, 372 U.S. 39, 83 S.Ct. 623, 9 L.Ed.2d 570; United States v. Patrick, 1963, 372 U.S. 53, 83 S.Ct. 618, 9 L.Ed.2d 580; United States v. Omaha Live Stock Traders Exchange, 8 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 749; Finger v. United States, D.S.C.19......
  • United States v. Gilmore, No. 21
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 18 février 1963
    ...18. Besides the present case see to the same effect, e.g., Patrick v. United States, 288 F.2d 292 (C.A.4th Cir.), No. 22, reversed today, 372 U.S. 53, 83 S.Ct. 618; Owens v. Commissioner, 273 F.2d 251 (C.A.5th Cir.); Bowers v. Commissioner, 243 F.2d 904 (C.A.6th Cir.); McMurtry v. United St......
  • Gale v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4448-97.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 27 février 2002
    ...fees incurred in connection with petitioner's divorce generally would not be deductible. United States v. Patrick [63-1 USTC ¶ 9286], 372 U.S. 53 (1963); United States v. Gilmore [63-1 USTC ¶ 9285], 372 U.S. 39 (1963); see also sec. 262 (disallowing deductions for personal, living, and fami......
  • 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