Case: W. A. ROTH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Abbreviation: Roth v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1926-09-15
Docket Number: Docket No. 6012
Citation: 4 B.T.A. 834
Volume: 4
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: W. A. ROTH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 834–836

Head Matter:
W. A. ROTH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Docket No. 6012.
Decided September 15, 1926.
Shirley E. Meserve, Esq., Hewlings Mumper, Esq., and W. H. Teasley, G. P. A., for the petitioner.
George E. Adams, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Aeundeld
: The issue raised by the pleadings in this case is whether the Commissioner erred in adding to the reported income of the petitioner the salary of the petitioner's wife in the amount of $5,309.90 which she reported as her separate income. On the authority of the decision of the Board in the Appeal of Estate of George W. Randall, 4 B. T. A. 679, we hold that the Commissioner erred in this respect and on this point give judgment for the petitioner.
The petitioner devoted the greater part of his evidence and his brief to attempting to show that, under the oral agreement entered into with his wife about the time of their marriage, he and his wife are each subject to tax on one-half of their joint income, and that by the agreement their incomes and property are removed from the operation of the community property laws of California. This question is not placed before us by the pleadings and it therefore becomes unnecessary to consider it.
Order of redetermmation will Toe entered on 15 days' notice, wider Rule 50.