United States v. Popham

2 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Du Pont v. Commissioner

    233 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1956)   Cited 11 times

    His travel applications and orders were issued from the civilian personnel division of the office of Chief of Air Staff. It is quite clear to us that the Tax Court was correct in finding that the decedent was employed by the United States in a civilian capacity because that was a more convenient form of employment for him to have to accomplish the things which his expert knowledge would help him accomplish for the air force. The undefinitive legislative history of this exemption paragraph is set out in the Tax Court's opinion and will not be repeated here. Compare also for a comparable though not similar situation, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Connelly, 1949, 338 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 19, 94 L.Ed. 51; likewise, for a case where the taxpayer had many more of the indicia of military service than we have in the present case, United States v. Popham, 8 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 660. See 1952, 18 T.C. 1134, 1142. That the legislators were thinking in terms of "servicemen" finds additional support in a committee report which accompanied the bill extending the exemption to victims of the Korean conflict. S.Rep. No. 781, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. VIII, B, 1 (1951).

  2. Wilmington Trust Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Du Pont)

    18 T.C. 1134 (U.S.T.C. 1952)   Cited 2 times
    In Estate of DuPont v. C.I.R., 18 T.C. 1134, 1952 WL 201 (Tax Court 1952), the decedent was a civilian working under military supervision who died in the crash of an experimental military glider.

    We, therefore, answer the question posed in the negative and sustain respondent as to this issue. See United States v. Popham, Jr., 198 F.2d 660, reversing 97 F.Supp. 63. Reviewed by the Court.