Walsh v. United States

6 Citing cases

  1. Brooks v. United States

    473 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1973)   Cited 12 times

    The regulation in question has been examined heretofore only once in a reported decision of a court. Walsh v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 613 (E.D.N.Y. 1970). In declaring the regulation invalid and ordering refund of the taxes paid that court said:

  2. Jones v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    71 T.C. 128 (U.S.T.C. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    Petitioner then points to the holdings of four cases which hold that the definition of “retirement age,” contained in section 1.105-4(a)(3)(i)(b ), inclusion by reference of the definition of retirement age set out in section 1.79-2(b)(3)(i)(a ), Income Tax Regs., is invalid as an attempted withdrawal by the Commissioner of a statutorily conferred benefit. These cases are Walsh v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. N.Y. 1970); Brooks v. United States, 473 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1973); Jovick v. United States, 492 F.2d 1215 (Ct. Cl. 1973); and Reardon v. United States, 491 F.2d 822 (10th Cir. 1974). From these cases petitioner makes the following points: The section 1.105-4(a) (3)(i)(b ), Income Tax Regs., definition of retirement age contained in section 1.79-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs., cannot apply to him because it has been held invalid by the above courts, and since Arizona had no mandatory retirement age when petitioner retired, all petitioner's pension payments have been received during a period that he would have been at his retirement age (there being none).

  3. Reardon v. United States

    491 F.2d 822 (10th Cir. 1974)   Cited 13 times

    Two recent decisions have held that the two regulations are invalid insofar as they deprive a disability retiree of the exclusion benefits before mandatory retirement age. Brooks v. United States, 473 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1973); Jovick v. United States, 492 F.2d 1215 (Ct.Claims 1973). See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Winter, 303 F.2d 150 (3rd Cir. 1962); Walsh v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 613 (E.D.N.Y. 1970); Bigley v. United States, 252 F. Supp. 757 (E.D.Mo. 1966); Keefe v. United States, 247 F. Supp. 589 (N.D.N.Y. 1965). In Brooks the Court stated:

  4. Jovick v. United States

    492 F.2d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 1973)   Cited 5 times

    Brooks v. United States, 473 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1973). The regulation upon which defendant relies (Reg. 1.79-2(b)(3)) resulted from an amendment made in 1966 and was first struck down in Walsh v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 613 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), as an unauthorized restriction on a statutory benefit. Walsh was followed in Brooks v. United States, 339 F. Supp. 1031 (M.D.Tenn.

  5. Brooks v. United States

    339 F. Supp. 1031 (M.D. Tenn. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    It is the feeling of this Court that to permit the application of the Treasury regulation would circumvent the intent of Congress. Walsh v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 613 (E.D.N.Y. 1970); Watson v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 755 (E.D.Tenn. 1965). It is of interest to the Court that, after many decisions following this rationale, Congress has not seen fit to change the statute to effect the position taken by the Treasury Department.

  6. Stout v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    71 T.C. 441 (U.S.T.C. 1978)

    This is a question of fact for the Court to determine. Walsh v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 613, 619 (E.D.N.Y. 1970). In this case, the petitioner was not absent from work on account of personal injury or sickness.