Ney v. United States

5 Citing cases

  1. Ney v. United States

    171 F.2d 449 (8th Cir. 1948)   Cited 23 times
    Denying travel deductions as personal where taxpayer spent six-sevenths of his time working in one city away from his place of abode

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas; John E. Miller, Judge. Action by Jerome M. Ney against the United States to recover income taxes. From the judgment for defendant, 77 F. Supp. 1005, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

  2. Puckett v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    56 T.C. 1092 (U.S.T.C. 1971)

    Cf. George W. Lindsay, 34 B.T.A. 840 (1936); S.M.R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841 (1946). See also Leon Falk, Jr., 15 T.C. 49, 57 (1950); Ney v. United States, 77 F.Supp. 1005 (1948), affd. 171 F.2d 449 (C.A. 8, 1948), certiorari denied 336 U.S. 967. In Joseph H. Sherman, supra, the taxpayer owned a home and lived with his family in Worchester, Mass. For several years, including the taxable year 1945, he had been employed by a company engaged in the manufacture of plastic products as production manager and purchasing agent.

  3. Whitaker v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    24 T.C. 750 (U.S.T.C. 1955)   Cited 8 times

    They do not prove that he had a post or principal place of employment elsewhere. We are unable to distinguish this case in any material respect from Ney v. United States, (D. Ark.) 77 F.Supp. 1005, affd. (C.A. 8) 171 F.2d 449, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 967. In that case the taxpayer maintained a home for his family and had a business in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

  4. Falk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    15 T.C. 49 (U.S.T.C. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    Nor did petitioner's employment in Washington by the Government require him to maintain his home in Pittsburgh. For the purposes of his Government employment, his place of business was Washington, D.C. The case of Ney v. United States, 77 Fed.Supp. 1005, affd., 171 Fed.(2d) 449, certiorari denied, 336 U.S. 967, appears to have arisen upon substantially identical facts to those here involved. There the taxpayer was denied the deduction of expenses for hotel rooms and board in Washington during performance of services for the Government in one of the war agencies.

  5. Green v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    12 T.C. 656 (U.S.T.C. 1949)   Cited 3 times

    OPPER, Judge:We can not distinguish this proceeding in any particular from Ney v. United States (Dist. Ct., Ark.), 77 Fed.Supp. 1005; affd. (C.C.A., 8th Cir.), 171 Fed.(2d) 449. As in that case petitioner spent all but a few days of the year in employment away from what he contends was his ‘home,‘ although he received a considerable portion of his income from services performed at the latter place.