TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CLARK Et Al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Clark v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 158 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1946)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 12, 1946
Docket
No. 10320
Judges
Simons, Martin, Miller
Citations
158 F.2d 85135 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6121946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners are all employees of the Timken Roller Bearing Plant of Canton, Ohio, and their wives. They complain of a decision of the Tax Court sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the disallowance of deductions from gross income, of amounts paid to the wives of the petitioners for consortium or household services, depreciation upon privately owned motor vehicles used for transportation to and from their place of employment, the cost of accident insurance premiums, amounts expended in the purchase of cigarettes for cigarette taxes levied upon manufacturers and retailers, and amount paid by one of the petitioners to enable his son to return to his station in the military service as a contribution made to the United States for public purposes.

The contention is made that because the Commissioner refunded as an overpayment an excess withheld from the wages of the petitioners under the current “pay-as-you-go” tax plan, this is a final determination under Section 3801, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code. The Tax Court rightly held that such refunds are a matter of grace to the taxpayer, are made in consequence of the amount due as shown on the return, are made subject to final audit and adjustment and are not, therefore, the final determinations under the cited section. In respect to the merits we are also in *852 agreement with the decision of the Tax Court that none of the amounts claimed as deductions, except that allowed by'the court for cleaning of work clothes necessitated by the hazards of the peetitioners’ occupation, is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Code, wherefore, The decision of the Tax Court is in all respects hereby affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1952: 11955: 11967: 11968: 21972: 11974: 11976: 11981: 11982: 21984: 11988: 11992: 11996: 11997: 12004: 12005: 12018: 12022: 119522026peak 1968 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Owens v. Commissioner50 T.C. 577 (Tax Ct. 1968)
  2. Leineweber v. Comm'r2004 T.C. Memo. 17
  3. William J. Beer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue733 F.2d 435 (6th Cir. 1984)
  4. Milleg v. Commissioner19 T.C. 395 (Tax Ct. 1952)
  5. Terry v. Commissioner91 T.C. No. 10
  6. Stierhout v. Commissioner24 T.C. 483 (Tax Ct. 1955)

Most recent

  1. George P. Manzolillo & Lucy P. ManzolilloNo. 25481-16 (Tax Ct. Oct. 24, 2022)
  2. Gary E. Krantz v. Commissioner2018 T.C. Memo. 17
  3. ABOUELNOOR v. COMMISSIONER2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 178
  4. Leineweber v. Comm'r2004 T.C. Memo. 17
  5. Clayton v. Commissioner1997 T.C. Memo. 327
  6. Brown v. Commissioner1996 T.C. Memo. 100

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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