Ernest H. Vernon and Freda J. Vernon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Good Law
286 F.2d 173·7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 542
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 19, 196116950California257 words

Opinion

Opinion

The decision of the tax court is affirmed. Petitioner Ernest H. Vernon is union official who attempted deductions on his federal income tax returns for asserted unreimbursed expenses in connection with his union activities, mostly attending union meetings or conferences as an official. A portion was allowed by the tax court.

We think it fair to say that Vernon weakened his case by introducing the factor that a motivation, at least in part, for some of the expense was the urgency of his getting re-elected annually to his official union position. On this his counsel concedes, as he virtually must, that the law is against him.

We interpret the finding of the tax court when it said, “Petitioner has failed to carry this burden [of showing the claimed deductions were primarily business rather than personal expenses] ” as meaning that petitioner husband did not convince the trier of fact that the outlay was for the purposes of his employer. Thus, the petitioners never got beyond a question of fact. And we cannot retry the facts. If the tax court had thought the expenditures were really advancing the purposes of the employer, we see no indication that the tax court would not properly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.