TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commissioner v. Sullivan

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SULLIVAN Et Al.

Comm'r v. Sullivan, 356 U.S. 27 (1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 17, 1958
Docket
No. 119
Judges
Douglas
Citations
356 U.S. 2778 S. Ct. 5122 L. Ed. 2d 5591 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 11581958 U.S. LEXIS 1885

Opinion — Douglas

Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether amounts expended to lease premises and hire employees for the conduct of alleged illegal gambling enterprises are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses within the meaning of § 23 (a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

1

*28 The taxpayers received income from bookmaking establishments in Chicago, Ill. The Tax Court found that these enterprises were illegal under Illinois law, 2

that the acts performed by the employees constituted violations of that law, and that the payment of rent for the use of the premises for the purpose of bookmaking was also illegal under that law. The Tax Court accordingly held that the amount paid for wages and for rent could not be deducted from gross income since those deductions were for expenditures made in connection with illegal acts. 15 CCH TC Mem. Dec. 23, 25 T. C. 513 . The Court of Appeals reversed, 241 F. 2d 46 , 242 F. 2d 558 , on the basis of its prior decision in Commissioner v. Doyle, 231 F. 2d 635 . The case is here on a petition for certiorari, 354 U. S. 920 , for consideration in connection with the companion cases Hoover Motor Express Co.

v. United States, post, p. 38, and Tank Truck Rentals, Inc., v. Commissioner, post, p. 30, decided this day.

Deductions are a matter of grace and Congress can, of course, disallow them as it chooses. At times the policy to disallow expenses in connection with certain condemned activities is clear. It was made so by the Regulations in Textile Mills Corp.

v. Commissioner, 314 U. S. 326 . Any inference of disapproval of these expenses as deductions is absent here. The Regulations, indeed, point the other way, for they make the federal excise tax on wagers deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.

3

This seems to us to be recognition of a *29 gambling enterprise as a business for federal tax purposes. The policy that allows as a deduction the tax paid to conduct the business seems sufficiently hospitable to allow the normal deductions of the rent and wages necessary to operate it. We said in Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U. S. 467, 474 , that the “fact that an expenditure bears a remote relation to an illegal act” does not make it nondeductible. And see Lilly v. Commissioner, 343 U. S. 90 . If we enforce as federal policy the rule espoused by the Commissioner in this case, we would come close to making this type of business taxable on the basis of its gross receipts, while all other business would be taxable on the basis of net income. If that choice is to be made, Congress should do it. The amounts paid as wages to employees and to the landlord as rent are “ordinary and necessary expenses” in the accepted meaning of the words. That is enough to permit the deduction, unless it is clear that the allowance is a device to avoid the consequence of violations of a law, as in Hoover Motor Express Co.

v. United States, supra, and Tank Truck Rentals, Inc., v. Commissioner, supra, or otherwise contravenes the federal policy expressed in a statute or regulation, as in Textile Mills Corp.

v. Commissioner, supra.

Affirmed.

1

Section 23 (a) (1) (A) provides:

“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:

“All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; . . . and rentals or other payments *28 required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business, of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which he has no equity.” 53 Stat. 12 , as amended, 56 Stat. 819 , 26 U. S. C. §23 (a)(1)(A).

2

Ill. Rev. Stat., 1945, c. 38, § 336.

3

Treas. Reg. 118, §39.23 (a)-l, Rev. Rui. 54-219, 1954-1 Cum. Bull. 51:

“The Federal excise tax on wagers under section 3285 (d) of the *29 Internal Revenue Code and the special tax under section 3290 of the Code paid by persons engaged in receiving wagers are deductible, for Federal income tax purposes, as ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 23 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, provided the taxpayer is engaged in the business of accepting wagers or conducting wagering pools or lotteries, or is engaged in receiving wagers for or on behalf of any person liable for the tax under section 3285 (d) of the Code.”

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 8 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 110 cases

View all citing references →
1958: 21959: 41960: 51961: 41962: 61963: 21965: 41966: 11967: 21968: 11969: 21970: 31971: 21972: 11973: 11974: 11975: 31977: 31978: 21979: 11980: 31981: 21982: 31983: 21984: 11985: 41986: 31987: 11988: 21989: 11990: 11993: 21994: 11996: 11998: 51999: 12000: 42002: 12003: 32004: 22005: 12006: 22010: 12011: 22014: 32018: 12019: 12020: 12022: 42024: 119582026peak 1962 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. John M. Winters, Jr., and Marian M. Winters261 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1958)
  2. Hackworth v. Commissioner, IRS155 F. App'x 627 (4th Cir. 2005)
  3. Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States894 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2018)
  4. Hopka v. United States195 F. Supp. 474 (N.D. Iowa 1961)
  5. Bilzerian v. United States41 Fed. Cl. 134 (Fed. Cl. 1998)
  6. Dixie MacHine Welding & Metal Works, Inc. v. United States315 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Hunt County Appraisal District v. Lake Tawakoni Wind Point Park CorporationNo. 06-24-00016-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 28, 2024)
  2. County of Santa Barbara v. ManciniNo. E075246 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2022)
  3. Michael T. SestakNo. 17285-18 (Tax Ct. Apr. 25, 2022)
  4. I-10 R v. L.L.C. v. Jefferson County Appraisal DistrictNo. 09-20-00166-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 21, 2022)
  5. Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield25 Or. Tax 1 (Or. T.C. 2022)
  6. Darr v. Internal Revenue ServiceNo. 18-04091 (Bankr. D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
Comm'r v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467 (1943) 927
Textile Mills Sec. Corp. v. Comm'r, 314 U.S. 326 (1941) 147
Lilly v. Comm'r, 343 U.S. 90 (1952) 130
Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Charles v. Doyle & Clara Doyle, 231 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1956) 18
Mesi v. Comm'r, 25 T.C. 513 (Tax Ct. 1955) 10
Neil Sullivan & Grace Sullivan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, James Ross & Ann Ross v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 241 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1957) 9
Mesi v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 242 F.2d 558 (7th Cir. 1957) 5
Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Comm'r, 354 U.S. 920 (1957) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list