Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

4 Citing cases

  1. Donigan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    68 T.C. 632 (U.S.T.C. 1977)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that the taxpayer, who was married at the relevant time, was not eligible for the filing status of single

    Both cases dealth with marital status for taxpayers claiming head of household status, but the same reasoning applies for single filing status. See Johnson v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 723 (1968). See also Shippole v. Commissioner, T.C.Memo. 1976—378 (husband whose wife had deserted him was still married for sec. 1(c) purposes).

  2. Wright v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    62 T.C. 377 (U.S.T.C. 1974)

    Gordon L. Munderloh, 48 T.C. 452 (1967). Jean contends the obligation was incurred under the divorce decree which became final on October 4, 1968, relying on Riddell v. Guggenheim, 281 F.2d 836 (C.A. 9, 1960); Commissioner v. Ostler, 237 F.2d 501 (C.A. 9, 1956), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Commissioner v. Evans, 211 F.2d 378 (C.A. 10, 1954), affirming 19 T.C. 1102 (1953); Merle Johnson, 50 T.C. 723 (1968); Marriner S. Eccles, 19 T.C. 1049 (1953), affirmed per curiam 208 F.2d 796 (C.A. 4, 1953). Merle Johnson deals with the right of a husband to use "head of household" tax rates after the entry of an interlocutory decree of divorce.

  3. Wright v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    62 T.C. 377 (U.S.T.C. 1974)

    Gordon L. Munderloh, 48 T.C. 452 (1967). Jean contends the obligation was incurred under the divorce decree which became final on October 4, 1968, relying on Riddell v. Guggenheim, 281 F.2d 836 (C.A. 9, 1960); Commissioner v. Ostler, 237 F.2d 501 (C.A. 9, 1956), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Commissioner v. Evans, 211 F.2d 378 (C.A. 10, 1954), affirming 19 T.C. 1102 (1953); Merle Johnson, 50 T.C. 723 (1968); Marriner S. Eccles, 19 T.C. 1049 (1953), affirmed per curiam 208 F.2d 796 (C.A. 4, 1953). Merle Johnson deals with the right of a husband to use ‘head of household’ tax rates after the entry of an interlocutory decree of divorce.

  4. Bayless v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    61 T.C. 394 (U.S.T.C. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, petitioner was not unmarried at the close of 1967, as required by section 1(b)(2), but had merely an interlocutory divorce decree. Merle Johnson, 50 T.C. 723 (1968). However, petitioner contends that those parts of section 1(b)(2) which require that a taxpayer live with his child or children and be unmarried are unconstitutional.