From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hopkins v. Bacon

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 28, 1930
38 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1930)

Opinion

No. 5479.

February 28, 1930.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; William H. Atwell, Judge.

Suit by C.W. Bacon against George C. Hopkins, Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiff [ 27 F.2d 140], and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Norman A. Dodge, U.S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., C.M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and T.H. Lewis, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Rhodes S. Baker, of Dallas, Tex., Harry C. Weeks, of Wichita Falls, Tex., and R.C. Fulbright and Palmer Hutcheson, both of Houston, Tex. (Thompson, Knight, Baker Harris, of Dallas, Tex., Weeks, Morrow, Francis Hankerson, of Wichita Falls, Tex., and Fulbright, Crooker Freeman and Baker, Botts, Parker Garwood, all of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.

Monte M. Lemann and Chas. E. Dunbar, Jr., both of New Orleans, La., as amici curiæ, for Louisiana taxpayers.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.



In this case it appears that C.W. Bacon and his wife are citizens of Texas and domiciled therein. The laws of Texas provide for the matrimonial community. They made separate returns of the income of the community for the year 1927. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue held that the entire income should have been returned by the husband and determined a deficiency of $1,951.88, which was paid under protest, and suit was brought to recover it back. The District Court held in favor of appellee and rendered judgment accordingly.

There is no doubt, as will appear from the well-considered opinion of the District Court, Bacon v. Hopkins, 27 F.2d 140, and the authorities therein cited, that under the law of Texas the wife has a vested interest and not a mere expectancy in the community property. This is the controlling principle in determining whether the wife may file a separate return for her share of the community income. We have fully stated our views on this question in the case of Bender v. Pfaff, 38 F.2d 649, decided to-day, and need not repeat them in this case. No other question is presented.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hopkins v. Bacon

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 28, 1930
38 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1930)
Case details for

Hopkins v. Bacon

Case Details

Full title:HOPKINS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BACON

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 28, 1930

Citations

38 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1930)

Citing Cases

Hopkins v. Bacon

Following Poe v. Seaborn, q.v., ante, p. 101. P. 125. 38 F.2d 651, affirmed. CERTIORARI, 281 U.S. 715, to…

Holt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

+---------------------------------------+ ¦Cost of goods sold (marijuana)¦$280,000¦…