Court Opinion

ID: 9445153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:21:17.873665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:08.846675
License: Public Domain

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The finding of the Secretary so prorates appellee’s expenses for the two crit*78ical tax years as to make his cost for writing the thirty-six policies involved more than double his commissions from them. Agreement with that finding is directly opposed to the only evidence in the case on the point, that of appellee, himself. He testified that the writing of those few policies scattered over the entire two year period was virtually without expense to him. They were merely tag ends of legal matters, e. g. closing a title. As the district court found [132 F.Supp. 640] :
“This method of dealing with insurance companies by lawyers is very well known to members of the bar, particularly the older members of the profession. Im'such circumstances, we feel the proration method adopted by the defendant ought not to be used as the basis for denying plaintiff’s claim as the theory had no evidence at all to support it.”
This informal, frugal method of writing insurance now and again as the opportunity might arise may not be in accord with some so-called best accounting practice but it happens to be an actuality with a great number of decent attorneys determined to make a go of it at the practice of law. It is the fact here. It should be so accepted. I would affirm the decision of the district court.