Evening star., 1952-09-02
By jones E. Roper

l SS"s~S - hNSF~
Problems of love and marriage
have put the staid United States
Tax Court in a mellow mood.
After due philosophizing. the
court has favored love. even
though it sometimes has to come
tax paid.
Take the case of Mrs. Helen E.
Stairwalt. In 1947. she main
tanned a home with her husband
in New York. But for six months
of the year she worked as as
sistant to the general marager
of the Delaware Park race track.
near Wilmington.
She received a salary of $3.862
but claimed business expense
deductions of $3,862 for the cost
Of living in Delaware and for
train fare to visit her husband
on week ends.
Long Wrangle Ensues.
This prompted long wrangle
with the Internal Revenue Bureau
and the Tax Court. The final rul-
ing was that the train fare to
New York was not a business ex-
pense, but the cost of living in
Delaware was. This will save Mrs.
Stairwalt $685. in taxes.
The Tax Court. for the sake of
love. hesitated to give her even
that much of a break. The court
didn't want to offer any tax ad-
vantage to married couples who
live apart.
I'm these days of gainful occu-
lpation by married women, it is
strange that the factual back
ground presented here has not
arisen more often." the tax court
ruled.
Approves Travelling Expense.
I'VE find here a married woman
employed at a point far enough
away from the marital domicile
so that expenses for meals and
lodging become significant.
IF it were doubtful before. it
can no longer be questioned that
the tax home needs not be the
one at which the largest COM
penSation is received.
Regardless even of the possible
considerations of public policy in
herent in creating as few induce
ments as possible to tire main
tenance of separate domici!es for
husband and wife, we think
enough has been shown here so
that her expenses in Wilmington
were deductible as travelling ex-
IpenSes." ....
Decide on Gaming Case.
In another case, the Tax Court
had to decide whether the hus-
band or the wife had to pay in
come taxes on profits they made
out OF two gambling rooms in
Hollywood, Fla. The court said
it's the woman who pays.
| Everybody in the case agreed
that Jesse G. Wellons and his
wife Frances joined a partnership
organized Ito conduct a gambling
business. The court decision
said the partnership. directed by
'one R. A. Springer" operated in
room over the Rainbo Grill and
maintained "a second gambling
room" in another building in
Hollywood.
Mr.. Wellons owned 40 per cent
Iof the business" and his wife 20
per cent. But the tax collector
tried to make the husband pay
taxes on all the profits, including
his wife's share.
The Tax Court ruled, however,
that a wife can go into business
with her husband, and has to
pay taxes on her share of the
profits. The profits must have
been considerable, because Inter-
nal Revenue had tried to make
the husband pay $4,000 taxes
on his wife's income during 1916
and 1947.
And the Woman Pays.
The money and marital troubles
of Homer H. Harris, ST., and his
divorced wife, Arletta. also plagued
the Tax Court. In their divorce
agreement in Alexandria, La. Mr..
Harris promised to give his wife
$500 per month as long as she
waived claim to alimony.
A divorce has to pay taxes on
alimony, but Mrs. Harris said this
wasn't alimony. She objected to
4 N - ~ n u ii