Case: Joseph S. Laurent, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Hite H. Huffaker, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; James D. Garnett, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Arthur C. Van Winkle, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Laurent v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1928-06-08
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 5997, 8550, 8567, 9285
Citation: 12 B.T.A. 474
Volume: 12
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Joseph S. Laurent, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Hite H. Huffaker, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. James D. Garnett, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Arthur C. Van Winkle, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 474–476

Head Matter:
Joseph S. Laurent, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Hite H. Huffaker, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. James D. Garnett, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Arthur C. Van Winkle, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 5997, 8550, 8567, 9285.
Promulgated June 8, 1928.
S. L. Barber, Esq., and F. O. Graves, Esq., for the petitioners.
J. L. Bachstrom, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Smith:
The facts, except as to amount of compensation received, and question in issue in these proceedings are the same as in Robert G. Gordon, 5 B. T. A. 1047. The decision in that case is controlling. The compensation received was not exempt from income tax.
Judgments will be entered for the respondent.