Wyndham v. United States, AC/563.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. AC/563.,AC/563. |
| Citation | 197 F. Supp. 856 |
| Parties | Stephen F. WYNDHAM and Frances G. Wyndham, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Leon W. Vaseliades, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
WYCHE, District Judge (sitting by designation).
This is an action for the recovery of income taxes alleged to have been erroneously and illegally collected by the United States from the plaintiffs for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, the claim being based upon a five dollar a day subsistence allowance allegedly excludable from gross income by police officials of a State under Section 120, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 120, and Section 53-2.1 of the Code of Laws for South Carolina, 1952, as amended, passed pursuant to said Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The material facts in this case have been stipulated and the only issue involved in this action is whether the term "police official", as used in Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code, includes a game warden.
The case was tried before me on the stipulated facts without a jury, and in compliance with Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon, in the above cause, as follows:
Findings of Fact
1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court under the provision of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(a).
2. The plaintiff Stephen F. Wyndham has been a game warden, commissioned and employed as such by the State of South Carolina, and was so commissioned and employed during the calendar years 1955, 1956 and 1957.
3. Stephen F. Wyndham's duties as game warden during the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, and for which he was paid a salary by the State of South Carolina, consisted of seeing that the bird, nonmigratory fish and game laws were enforced, obtaining information as to all violations of such bird, non-migratory fish and game laws, and prosecuting all persons having in their possession any birds, non-migratory fish or game contrary to the bird, fish and game laws of this State, and as game warden he possessed and exercised all of the power and authorities held and exercised by the constable at common law and under the statutes of South Carolina.
4. On the 28th day of May, 1955, the General Assembly of South Carolina, passed a statute which is incorporated in Section 53-2.1, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, as amended, and is as follows:
5. Plaintiffs filed in the office of the District Director of the Internal Revenue at Columbia, South Carolina, their federal income tax returns for the calendar years of 1955, 1956 and 1957, and paid the taxes thereon shown to be due.
6. Plaintiffs in listing their taxable income on tax return for the calendar year 1955, included therein the sum of $745, which they allege represented the statutory subsistence allowance received by Stephen F. Wyndham at the rate of $5 per day for 149 regular work days during the year 1955, pursuant to the provisions of Section 53-2.1 of the South Carolina Code.
7. Plaintiffs in listing their taxable income on the federal income tax return for the calendar year 1956, included therein the sum of $1,500, which they allege represented the statutory subsistence allowance received by Stephen F. Wyndham at the rate of $5 per day for 300 regular work days during the year 1956, pursuant to the provision of Section 53-2.1 of the South Carolina Code.
8. Plaintiffs in listing their taxable income on the federal income tax return for the calendar year 1957, included therein the sum of $1,495, which they allege represented the statutory subsistence allowance received by Stephen F. Wyndham at the rate of $5 per day for 299 regular work days during the year 1957, pursuant to the provision of Section 53-2.1 of the South Carolina Code.
9. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed with the defendant, through the District Director of Internal Revenue, claims for refunds as follows: $156.94 for the year 1955; $300 for the year 1956; $270.92 for the year 1957, claiming that there was included in the taxable income amounts representing the subsistence allowance which should have been excluded from taxable income pursuant to Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and Section 53-2.1 of the South Carolina Code.
10. The taxpayer Stephen F. Wyndham worked as a game warden for the South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department for the number of days during each calendar year and was paid and received the salary and subsistence as follows: For the calendar year 1955, worked regularly 240 days, and received salary and subsistence of $2,699.92; for the calendar year 1956, worked regularly 240 days, and received salary and subsistence of $2,699.92; for the calendar year 1957, worked regularly 240 days, and received salary and subsistence of $2,834.98.
11. Of the amounts set forth under salary and subsistence received, $5 per day for each regular work day, or $1,200 per year for each of the foregoing years, is designated by the South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department as a statutory subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions and requirement of Section 53-2.1, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1952, as amended.
12. On June 2, 1960, the defendant, through the District Director of Internal Revenue, Columbia, South Carolina, notified the plaintiffs by registered mail of the rejection and disallowance in full of plaintiffs' claims for refunds alleged to have been erroneously and illegally paid by and collected from them for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957.
13. Section 120(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, prior to its repeal by Section 3(a) of the Public Law 85-866, provided: "Gross income does not include any amount received as a statutory subsistence allowance by an individual who is employed as a police official by a State * * *."
14. A game warden is includable within the term "police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of New Orleans v. Lewis
...laws, ordinances, and other measures which require the citizens to exercise their rights in a particular form.' See, Wyndham v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 856 (D.C.1961). 'Policemen of a city or town are peace officers and a policeman is a public officer, whose duties relate to governmental......
-
Miller v. United States, 22443.
...There must be cooperation, co-ordination and direction, with some central control and exchange of information. See Wyndham v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 856, 859 (D.C.1961); Burke v. State, 76 Ga.App. 612, 47 S.E.2d 116, 126; Green v. City of Bennettsville, 197 S.C. 313, 15 S.E.2d 334, 337.......
-
Police Pension Bd. of City of Phoenix v. Warren
...'is so plain and unambiguous that there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation, * * *'.' Wyndham v. United States, D.C., 197 F.Supp. 856. The meaning of the word 'police', as would normally be understood from the title of the act, implies a like meaning in the use......
-
Matrix, Inc. v. Provident American Ins. Co.
...40 (E.D.S.C.1957), aff'd, 253 F.2d 798 (4th Cir.1958); Parrish v. United States, 158 F.Supp. 238 (M.D.Ga.1958); Wyndham v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 856 (E.D.S.C.1961). The intention of the legislature should be determined primarily from the language used in the statute. Jones v. Del Ander......