OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Gilmore (372 U.S. 39)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 39
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Don GILMORE et ux.
No. 21. Argued: March 27-28, 1962. — Restored to the calendar for reargument: April 2, 1962. — Reargued: December 5-6, 1962. --- Decided: February 18, 1963.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.
Respondent sued for refund of part of the income taxes paid by him for the years 1953 and 1954, on the ground that legal expenses incurred by him in defending divorce litigation with his former wife were deductible under § 23(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, which allows as deductions from gross income "ordinary and necessary expenses . . . incurred ... for the conservation ... of property held for the production of income." His gross income was derived almost entirely from his salary as president of three corporations which were franchised automobile dealers and from dividends from his controlling stock in such corporations. His wife had sued for divorce, alimony and an alleged community property interest in such stock, and he alleged that, had he not succeeded in defeating these claims, he might have lost his stock, his corporate positions and the dealer franchises, from which nearly all of his income was derived. Held: None of respondent's expenditures in resisting these claims is deductible under § 23(a)(2). Pp. 40-52.
    (a) The origin and character of the claim with respect to which an expense was incurred, rather than its potential consequences upon the fortunes of the taxpayer, is the controlling basic test of whether the expense was "business" or "personal" and hence whether or not it is deductible under § 23(a)(2). Pp. 44-51.
    (b) The wife's claims stemmed entirely from the marital relationship, and not, under any tenable view of things, from income-producing activity. Therefore, none of respondent's expenditures in resisting these claims can be deemed "business" expenses deductible under § 23(a)(2). Pp. 51-52.
Ct. Cl., 290 F.2d 942, reversed and case remanded.
Wayne G. Barnett reargued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Richard J. Medalie, Melva M. Graney, Harold C. Wilkenfeld and Arthur I. Gould.
Eli Freed reargued the cause and filed briefs for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS believe that the Court reverses this case because of an unjustifiably narrow interpretation of the 1942 amendment to § 23 of the Internal Revenue Code and would accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilmore (74 U.S. 491)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
74 U.S. 491
United States v. Gilmore
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Nebraska; the case having been submitted by Mr. Ashton, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States.
No argument on the other side.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilmore (372 U.S. 39)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 39
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Don GILMORE et ux.
No. 21. Argued: March 27-28, 1962. — Restored to the calendar for reargument: April 2, 1962. — Reargued: December 5-6, 1962. --- Decided: February 18, 1963.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS believe that the Court reverses this case because of an unjustifiably narrow interpretation of the 1942 amendment to § 23 of the Internal Revenue Code and would accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilmore (75 U.S. 330)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
75 U.S. 330
United States v. Gilmore
THIS was an appeal from the Court of Claims, in which court a suit was instituted by Gilmore, an ex-colonel of the army, for a sum alleged to be due him as allowance for servants' pay, beyond the sum actually allowed him for that purpose by the Comptroller of the Treasury, in settlement of his accounts; Gilmore claiming the same sum ($16) per month for such pay, as was allowed by act of Congress of June 20th, 1864, to private soldiers, and the Comptroller of the Treasury considering that under acts of Congress, regulating the matter, he was not entitled to so large a sum. Judgment was given in favor of Gilmore by the Court of Claims, and the United States appealed.
The sum in controversy, in the particular case, was insignificant, but the principle involved extended to numerous claims and large amounts.
Mr. Chipman, for the appellant; Mr. Dickey, Assistant Attorney-General, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 146

* 146 U.S. 1 (1892) McPherson v. Blacker
* 146 U.S. 42 (1892) Van Winkle v. Crowell
* 146 U.S. 54 (1892) Cincinnati Safe Lock Company v. Grand Rapids Safety Deposit Company
* 146 U.S. 56 (1892) Hubbard v. Soby
* 146 U.S. 60 (1892) Earnshaw v. United States
* 146 U.S. 71 (1892) United States v. Perry
* 146 U.S. 76 (1892) United States v. Schoverling
* 146 U.S. 82 (1892) Cross v. Burke
* 146 U.S. 88 (1892) Foster v. Mansfield, C. & L. M. Railroad Company
* 146 U.S. 102 (1892) Ware v. Galveston City Company
* 146 U.S. 117 (1892) City of Bellaire v. Baltimore O. Railroad Company
* 146 U.S. 120 (1892) San Pedro Canon Del Agua Company v. United States
* 146 U.S. 140 (1892) Mattox v. United States
* 146 U.S. 153 (1892) Roby v. Colehour
* 146 U.S. 162 (1892) Morley v. Lake Shore & M. S. Railway Company
* 146 U.S. 179 (1892) Hardee v. Wilson
* 146 U.S. 183 (1892) Cook v. Hart
* 146 U.S. 196 (1892) Stotesbury v. United States
* 146 U.S. 202 (1892) Southern Pacific Company v. Denton
* 146 U.S. 210 (1892) Root v. Third Ave Railroad Company
* 146 U.S. 227 (1892) Washington Company v. District of Columbia
* 146 U.S. 233 (1892) Junge v. Hedden
* 146 U.S. 240 (1892) Thompson v. St. Nicholas National Bank
* 146 U.S. 252 (1892) Toplitz v. Hedden
* 146 U.S. 258 (1892) Hamilton Gaslight Coke Company v. Hamilton
* 146 U.S. 271 (1892) In re Cross
* 146 U.S. 279 (1892) Wilmington Company v. Alsbrook
* 146 U.S. 303 (1892) Butler v. Goreley
* 146 U.S. 314 (1892) Hallinger v. Davis
* 146 U.S. 325 (1892) Benson v. United States
* 146 U.S. 338 (1892) United States v. Dunnington Dunnington
* 146 U.S. 354 (1892) Chicago Railway Company v. Osborne Same
* 146 U.S. 355 (1892) Joy v. Adelbert College of Western Reserve University
* 146 U.S. 357 (1892) Ex parte Engles
* 146 U.S. 363 (1892) Balloch v. Hooper
* 146 U.S. 370 (1892) Lewis v. United States
* 146 U.S. 387 (1892) Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois
* 146 U.S. 476 (1892) Derby v. Thompson
* 146 U.S. 483 (1892) La Compania Bilbaina De Navegacion De Bilbao v. Spanish-American Light Power Company
* 146 U.S. 499 (1892) Scott v. Armstrong Farmers' Merchants' State Bank
* 146 U.S. 513 (1892) Mitchell v. New York, L. E. & W. Railroad Company
* 146 U.S. 515 (1892) Brinkerhoff v. Aloe
* 146 U.S. 517 (1892) National Tube Works Company v. Vallou
* 146 U.S. 524 (1892) Royer v. Coure
* 146 U.S. 533 (1892) Cameron v. United States
* 146 U.S. 536 (1892) McGourkey v. Toledo & O. C. Railway Company
* 146 U.S. 570 (1892) United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
* 146 U.S. 615 (1892) United States v. Colton Marble Lime Company Same
* 146 U.S. 619 (1892) Brown v. Marion National Bank of Lebanon
* 146 U.S. 620 (1892) Means v. Bank of Randall
* 146 U.S. 630 (1892) Lloyd v. Preston
* 146 U.S. 646 (1892) Yesler v. Board of Harbor Line Commisioners
* 146 U.S. 657 (1892) Huntington v. Attrill
* 146 U.S. 689 (1892) Potts v. Wallace
# United States Reports/Volume 15

2 Wheaton., ( 4 L.Ed. )
* 15 U.S. 1 (1817) Slocum v. Mayberry
* 15 U.S. 13 (1817) Greenleaf v. Cook
* 15 U.S. 18 (1817) Otis v. Walter
* 15 U.S. 25 (1817) M'Iver v. Ragan
* 15 U.S. 32 (1817) Hunter v. Bryant
* 15 U.S. 45 (1817) Duvall v. Craig
* 15 U.S. 66 (1817) Coolidge v. Payson
* 15 U.S. 76 (1817) The Dos Hermanos
* 15 U.S. 100 (1817) Beverly v. Brooke
* 15 U.S. 111 McCoul v. Lekamp's Administratrix
* 15 U.S. 119 (1817) United States v. Sheldon
* 15 U.S. 123 (1817) The Mary
* 15 U.S. 132 (1817) The San Pedro
* 15 U.S. 143 The Ariadne
* 15 U.S. 148 (1817) The William King
* 15 U.S. 161 (1817) The Fortuna
* 15 U.S. 169 (1817) The Bothnea and the Jahnstoff
* 15 U.S. 178 (1817) Laidlaw v. Organ
* 15 U.S. 196 (1817) Rutherford v. Greene's heirs
* 15 U.S. 206 (1817) Johnson
* 15 U.S. 221 (1817) Patterson v. United States
* 15 U.S. 227 (1817) The Pizarro
* 15 U.S. 248 (1817) United States v. Tenbroek
* 15 U.S. 259 (1817) Chirac v. Chirac
* 15 U.S. 278 (1817) The George
* 15 U.S. 287 (1817) The Argo
* 15 U.S. 290 (1817) Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan
* 15 U.S. 306 (1817) Liter v. Green
* 15 U.S. 316 (1817) Shipp v. Miller's heirs
* 15 U.S. 327 (1817) The Anna Maria
* 15 U.S. 336 (1817) Colson v. Thompson
* 15 U.S. 345 (1817) The Eleanor
* 15 U.S. 363 (1817) Inglee v. Coolidge
* 15 U.S. 369 M'Cluny v. Silliman
* 15 U.S. 371 The London Packet
* 15 U.S. 373 (1817) Lenox v. Roberts
* 15 U.S. 377 (1817) Colson v. Lewis
* 15 U.S. 380 (1817) Leeds v. Marine Insurance Company
* 15 U.S. 385 (1817) Raborg v. Peyton
* 15 U.S. 390 (1817) Union Bank v. Laird
* 15 U.S. 395 (1817) United States v. Barker
* 15 U.S. 396 (1817) Thelusson v. Smith
# United States Reports/Volume 153

* 153 U.S. 1 (1894) Lowndes v. Board of Trustees of the Town of Huntington
* 153 U.S. 32 (1894) Seeberger v. Castro
* 153 U.S. 38 (1894) Spalding v. Castro
* 153 U.S. 39 (1894) Wilson v. Haley Company
* 153 U.S. 48 (1894) United States v. Pridgeon
* 153 U.S. 64 (1894) The Martello v. The Willey
* 153 U.S. 78 (1894) West v. Cabell
* 153 U.S. 88 (1894) United States v. Shields
* 153 U.S. 93 (1894) United States v. Klingenberg
* 153 U.S. 105 (1894) Lutz v. Magone
* 153 U.S. 109 (1894) Hegler v. Faulkner
* 153 U.S. 120 (1894) Morgan v. Daniels
* 153 U.S. 130 (1894) The Britannia (Shiras)
* 153 U.S. 155 (1894) Wharton v. Wise
* 153 U.S. 177 (1894) Erhardt v. Steinhardt
* 153 U.S. 183 (1894) Gourko v. United States
* 153 U.S. 192 (1894) Hanrick v. Hanrick
* 153 U.S. 199 (1894) Edwin I. Morrison Bradley Fertilizer Company v. Lavender
* 153 U.S. 216 (1894) Runkle v. Burnham
* 153 U.S. 228 (1894) Burke v. Dulaney
* 153 U.S. 239 (1894) State of California v. Southern Pacific Company
* 153 U.S. 246 (1880) City National Bank v. District Court of Plymouth County
* 153 U.S. 273 (1894) Mann v. Tacoma Land Company
* 153 U.S. 287 (1894) Baer v. Moran Brothers Company
* 153 U.S. 289 (1894) Brennan v. City of Titusville
* 153 U.S. 308 (1894) Blitz v. United States
* 153 U.S. 318 (1894) McBroom v. Scottish Mortgage & Land Investment Company
* 153 U.S. 332 (1894) Gates Iron Works v. Fraser
* 153 U.S. 353 (1894) United States State of South Carolina v. Seymour
* 153 U.S. 361 (1894) Mason v. Pewabic Mining Company
* 153 U.S. 367 (1894) Roberts v. Lewis
* 153 U.S. 380 (1894) Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
* 153 U.S. 391 (1894) Brass v. North Dakota ex rel. Stoeser
* 153 U.S. 411 (1894) City of New Orleans v. Benjamin
* 153 U.S. 436 (1894) Ashley v. Ryan
* 153 U.S. 446 (1894) Eagle Insurance Company v. Ohio ex rel. Kinder
* 153 U.S. 456 (1894) Stewart v. Barnes
* 153 U.S. 465 (1894) Groves v. Sentell
* 153 U.S. 486 (1894) Mobile Company v. State of Tennessee
* 153 U.S. 509 (1894) Slide Spur Gold Mines v. Seymour
* 153 U.S. 523 (1894) Seymour v. Slide Spur Gold Mines
* 153 U.S. 525 (1894) Luxton v. North River Bridge Company
* 153 U.S. 535 (1894) Miller v. State of Texas
* 153 U.S. 540 (1894) Anvil Mining Company v. Humble
* 153 U.S. 554 (1894) Chicago Deposit Vault Company v. McNulta
* 153 U.S. 564 (1894) Loud v. Pomona Land Water Company
* 153 U.S. 584 (1894) Evans v. United States
* 153 U.S. 609 (1894) Seeberger v. Schweyer
* 153 U.S. 614 (1894) Starr v. United States
* 153 U.S. 628 (1894) New York Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
* 153 U.S. 649 (1894) Lyons v. Woods
* 153 U.S. 671 (1894) Metcalf v. City of Watertown
* 153 U.S. 684 (1894) McKane v. Durston
* 153 U.S. 689 (1894) Connecticut ex rel. New York & N. E. Railroad Company v. Woodruff
* 153 U.S. 692 (1894) Postal Telephone Cable Company v. City Council of Charleston
# United States v. McGowan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 535
United States v. McGowan
Argued: Dec. 17, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1938
Mr. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty Gen., and Wm. H. Ramsey, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. McDonald

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 471
United States v. McDonald
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.
Robert B. Lines and John Paul Jones, for appellee.
LAMAR, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. McElvain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 633
United States v. McElvain
Argued: Oct. 21, 1926. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1926
The Attorney General, Mr. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. John J. Healy, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 634-635 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. McKee/Dissent Clifford

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Clifford
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 442
United States v. McKee
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HUNT, dissenting.
I dissent from so much of the opinion of the court as allows interest to the claimant. Unless where the contract is express to that effect, the United States are not liable to pay interest. Interest should never be allowed on old claims, where payment has been deferred because the accounting officers of the treasury were of the opinion that further legislation was necessary to authorize their allowance, unless the new law clearly provides for the payment of interest as well as principal.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. McKee McKee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 233
United States v. McKee McKee
APPEALS from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith, for the United States.
Mr. S. W. Johnston, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 4

From the U.S. Copyright Office.
* Section 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies
* Section 402. Notice of copyright: Phonorecords of sound recordings
* Section 403. Notice of copyright: Publications incorporating United States Government works
* Section 404. Notice of copyright: Contributions to collective works
* Section 405. Notice of copyright: Omission of notice on certain copies and phonorecords
* Section 406. Notice of copyright: Error in name or date on certain copies and phonorecords
* Section 407. Deposit of copies or phonorecords for Library of Congress
* Section 408. Copyright registration in general
* Section 409. Application for copyright registration
* Section 410. Registration of claim and issuance of certificate
* Section 411. Registration and infringement actions
* Section 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement
# United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 5

From the U.S. Copyright Office.
* Section 501. Infringement of copyright
* Section 502. Remedies for infringement: Injunctions
* Section 503. Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles
* Section 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
* Section 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
* Section 506. Criminal offenses
* Section 507. Limitations on actions
* Section 508. Notification of filing and determination of actions
* Section 509. Seizure and forfeiture
* Section 510. Remedies for alteration of programming by cable systems
* Section 511. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright
* Section 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online
* Section 513. Determination of reasonable license fees for individual proprietors
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 17

Chap. XVII.—An Act to amend the act for taking the fifth census.
Act of March 23, 1830, ch. 40. Time extended for assistant marshal’s returns, &c. Marshals returns. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for such of the assistants to the marshals in the respective states and territories, who have not, before the passage of this act, made their ​respective returns to such marshals, under the act hereby amended, to complete their enumerations and make their returns under the said act, at any time before the first day of June, and for the marshals of such states and territories to make their returns to the Secretary of State at any time before the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to release such marshals and assistants from the penalties contained in the act aforesaid, unless their returns shall be made within the time prescribed in this act:Proviso. And provided further, That no persons be included in the returns made under the present act, unless such persons shall have been inhabitants of the districts for which such returns shall be made, on the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty.
Certain copies to be retained by clerks of courts.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the copies of returns and aggregate amounts directed to be filed by the marshals with the clerks of the several district courts, and supreme courts of the territories of the United States, shall be preserved by said clerks, and remain in their offices respectively; and so much of the act to which this is an amendment as requires that they shall be transmitted by said clerks to the Department of State, is hereby repealed.
Errors to be noted and printed.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to note all the clerical errors in the returns of the marshals and assistants, whether in the additions, classification of inhabitants, or otherwise, and cause said notes to be printed with the aggregate returns of the marshals, for the use of Congress.
Approved, February 3, 1831.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 2

Chap. II.—An Act to amend an act, entitled “An act to provide for paying to the state of Illinois three per centum of the net proceeds arising from the sale of the public lands within the same.”
Act of Dec. 12, 1820, ch. 2. State of Illinois exonerated from obligation to render an annual account of the application of the three per cent.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the act, entitled “An act to provide for paying to the state of Illinois three per centum of the net proceeds arising from the sale of the public lands within the same,” ​approved the twelfth of December, eighteen hundred and twenty, as requires an annual account of the application, by the said state, of the said three per centum, to be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.
Approved, January 13, 1831.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 22

Chap. XXII.—An Act authorizing the sale of a tract of land therein mentioned.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to offer at public sale, as soon as may be, the south-west, north-west, and north-east quarters of section number twenty-five, of township number six, in range number one west, in the Cincinnati district, under the same rules and regulations that govern the sale of other public lands of the United States.
Approved, February 12, 1831.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 26

Chap. XXVI.—An Act to provide hereafter for the payment of six thousand dollars annually to the Seneca Indians, and for other purposes.
Secretary of War authorized to pay 6,000 dollars annually, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the proceeds of the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, being the amount placed in the hands of the President of the United States, in trust, for the Seneca tribe of Indians, situated in the state of New York, be hereafter passed to the credit of the Indian appropriation fund; and that the Secretary of War be authorized to receive and pay over to the Seneca tribe of Indians, the sum of six thousand dollars, annually, in the way and manner as heretofore practised, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be authorized to receive and pay over to the Seneca tribe of Indians, the sum of two thousand six hundred and fourteen dollars and forty cents, out of any money in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, on account of the deficiency, by that amount, in the sum paid over to said Indians the last year.
Approved, February 19, 1831.