U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1965

Frederick W. Denniston v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 28, 1965 · Bazelon, Fahy, Burgee

343 F.2d 312; 120 U.S. App. D.C. 30; 15 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 250; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6730 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Frederick W. Denniston, petitioner pro se., Mr. Crombie J. D. Garrett, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis F. Oberdorfer and Mr. Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent., Mr. Sheldon S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, also entered an appearance for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Auborn v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)
Robert and Barbara Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1985)
Beausoleil v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1976)
Evans v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1967)
Burg v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)
Crowell v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)
Dickson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)

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:

Petitioners, a husband and wife filing a joint income tax return, seek reversal of a Tax Court determination that moneys the husband received as a Government Employees’ Incentive Award were includible in gross income. We affirm, adopting the decision of the Tax Court.

The excellent services which led to the award in question were just those which the husband had been instructed to perform in the course of his employment. The statute under which the award to him was made does not authorize awards for “religious, charitable, scientific, educational, artistic, literary, or civic achievement” (26 U.S.C. § 74(b)) ; rather, it authorizes discretionary awards by department heads to those Government employees who “contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government operations or who perform special acts or services in the public interest in connection with or related to *313 their official employment' (5 U.S.C. § 2123(a)). The awards are thus made for performance as an employee; that the achievement rewarded might in some contexts be classifiable as “civic” or another of the statutory categories of § 74 (b) is not relevant.

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

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