LEEDY-GLOVER REALTY & INSURANCE CO., INC. ET AL.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Tax Court's findings regarding the reasonableness of salaries paid to the petitioner's principal officers were not clearly erroneous and that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in allocating business expenses.
The Tax Court determined a deductible salary amount for the petitioner's two principal officers, which was higher than the Commissioner's initial allo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse "Clearly Erroneous" Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Court has held that the question of what constitutes a reasonable allowance for salary expense under the provisions of Section 23(a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code and the applicable treasury regulations is a question of fact under the circumstances of each particular case. See Gem Jewelry Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 165 F. 2d 991; Commercial Iron Works v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 166 F. 2d 221, 223; Canal Navigation & Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 168 F. 2d 512; Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(a) (1) (A).
Here, the Tax Court has fixed an amount properly deductible as salaries for each of petitioner’s two principal officers during the taxable years in dispute which is higher than that originally allowed by the Commissioner, but less than that claimed as reasonable by the petitioners on this appeal. The Commissioner has not filed a cross appeal from that determination, and the principal issue here confronting us is whether upon all of the evidence adduced we should view the findings of the Tax Court on this issue as clearly erroneous. See J. H. Robinson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 183 F. 2d 739.
From a careful consideration of the entire record evidence, we conclude that the findings of the Tax Court as to the reasonableness of the salaries allowed to the petitioner’s principal officers and stockholders as a deductible business expense are not clearly erroneous, but are borne out and supported by the record before us. See Crescent Bed Co. v. Commissioner, 133 F. 2d 424; Cf. J. H. Robinson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 183 F. 2d 739. Moreover, the evidence fails to reveal that the Commissioner, in allocating the business expenses among the taxpayers, all owned and controlled by the same interests, abused the discretion granted to him under Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. Title 26 U. S.C.A. § 45.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burford-Toothaker Tractor Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 192 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1951)
-
Cent. Cuba Sugar Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 198 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1952)
-
Young & Rubicam Inc. v. The United States, 410 F.2d 1233 (Ct. Cl. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J. H. Robinson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 183 F.2d 739 (5th Cir. 1950)
- Gem Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1948)
- Commercial Iron Works v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 166 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1948)
- Crescent Bed Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 133 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1943)
- Canal Navigation & Trading Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 168 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1948)