Court Opinion

ID: 9466143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:06:55.510017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:34.551470
License: Public Domain

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
Because I conclude that the transactions under investigation constituted services and the income derived therefrom taxable under 61(a)(1), I should have preferred that the court say so in positive terms. The question would thus cease to be a novel one for those considering it in the future.
It was a novel question when it arose here, however, and the defendant should have been permitted to demonstrate its novelty, not so that the jury could pass upon the tax consequences of the transactions, but so that the jurors could better determine the question of willfulness. The case should be sent back for retrial with the willfulness issue determined upon consideration of all the evidence.
I take it that, at some length, the majority winds up by doing just that. So, I concur.