U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1947

Budd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided May 5, 1947 · Hicks, Simons, Allen

177 F.2d 198; 38 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 549; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3394 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

T. G. Thompson, Cleveland, Ohio, Way-land K. Sullivan, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner., Douglas W. McGregor, J. P. Wenchel, Sewall Key, John W. Smith, Helen R. Car-loss and Muriel S. Paul, Washington, D. G, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

Lester v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1959)
Joslyn v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
Seltzer v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
Jo Eisinger and Lorain B. Eisinger v. Commissiner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1958)
Metcalf v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1958)
Mark B. Deitsch and Dorothy M. Deitsch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1957)
Deitsch v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1956)
Morsman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1956)
Hirshon v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1956)
Weil v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1955)
Gantz v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
Thomson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1966)
Jerry Lester v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1960)
Arthur G. B. Metcalf v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1st Cir. 1959)
Weil v. Commissioner (2d Cir. 1957)
Deitsch v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1956)
Gantz v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
Mandel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question here is whether in re-computing the income of the petitioner for the taxable year ending December 31, 1943, the respondent rightly included in the petitioner’s income the sum of $2400 out of $6,000 deducted by the petitioner as alimony payments under a separation agreement between the petitioner and his wife, in view of the language of § 22(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22(k), and Regulation 111, § 29.22(k)-1(d).

Section 22 (k) provides- in substance that alimony payments constitute taxable income of the wife but that the subsection does not apply to any periodic payments which the terms of the decree- or written instrument fix as a sum which: is- payable for the support of minor children. We agree with the Tax Court that in considering the separation instrument as a; whole it becomes clear that of the $6,000'- paid to the wife for the taxable year, a> minimum of $200 per month is earmarked for the support of the petitioner’s minor son.

Wherefore, the decision of the-Tax Court sustaining the deficiency assessment of the respondent is hereby affirmed' upon the reasoning of the Tax Court’s opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.