Editing Welch v. Helvering
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
==Opinion of the Court== |
==Opinion of the Court== |
||
[[Benjamin N. Cardozo]], delivering the Court's opinion, held that the expenses were too personal, were too bizarre to be ordinary, and were capital. He did not consider them "ordinary and necessary business expenses" and, therefore, not deductible under |
[[Benjamin N. Cardozo]], delivering the Court's opinion, held that the expenses were too personal, were too bizarre to be ordinary, and were capital. He did not consider them "ordinary and necessary business expenses" and, therefore, not deductible under Section 162 of the [[Internal Revenue Code]]. |
||
This case is frequently cited for its [[dictum]] describing the meaning of the term "necessary" in Section 162 as requiring that expenses merely be "appropriate and helpful [in] the development of the [taxpayer's] business." Cardozo submits that determining what constitutes a necessary expense can be enormously difficult: "life in all its fullness must supply the answer to the riddle." |
This case is frequently cited for its [[dictum]] describing the meaning of the term "necessary" in Section 162 as requiring that expenses merely be "appropriate and helpful [in] the development of the [taxpayer's] business." Cardozo submits that determining what constitutes a necessary expense can be enormously difficult: "life in all its fullness must supply the answer to the riddle." |