Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner

Court| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name|  Estate of Nelson A. Rockefeller, Deceased, Laurance S. Rockefeller, J. Richardson Dilworth and Donal C. O'Brien, Jr., Executors and Margaretta F. Rockefeller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued| April 22, 1985
Decided| May 24, 1985
Citations| 762 F.2d 264; 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5094; 53 USLW 2620; 85-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9429
Case history
Prior history| 83 T.C. 368 (1984)
Court membership
Judges sitting| Wilfred Feinberg, Henry Friendly, Jon O. Newman
Case opinions
Majority| Friendly, joined by Feinberg, Newman
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code § 162(a)
Keywords

* Business expense

Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1985),[1] was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code only allows deductions against income for expenses that occur while carrying on a trade or business.

## Facts of the case

[edit]

Nelson Rockefeller had incurred $550,159.78 worth of legal fees and services with regard to his 1974 vice presidential confirmation hearings. Mr. Rockefeller then claimed a $63,275 deduction on his 1974 income tax return, which was the amount of his salary as vice-president.

## Determination of the court

[edit]

The 2nd Circuit affirmed the Tax Courts ruling that the deductions were not allowed under IRC section 162.[2] The Court essentially compared Rockefeller's past job as Governor of New York with his position as Vice President and found that the two positions did not constitute the same trade or business. Mr. Rockefeller's estate argued that his trade or business was that of public service, but there was no authority that supported such a broad interpretation. Thus, the legal and consulting fees were not incurred in carrying out a trade or business, but in anticipation of doing so. Essentially, the court ruled that the expenses could not be deducted because Rockefeller was not yet "carrying on" the business of being Vice President.

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1985).
2. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 162

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1985) is available from: CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar

This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

|

* v
* t
* e

This tax-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

|

* v
* t
* e

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template