Merrell and Francine Vannier - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

          the origin of petitioner’s claim is his attempt to gain admission           
          to the California Bar.                                                      
               Our holding is supported by United States v. Gilmore, supra.           
          The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a husband’s legal            
          expenses in divorce proceedings were deductible.  The husband’s             
          overriding concern in the litigation was:  (1) To protect certain           
          assets, upon which the husband relied for his principal means of            
          livelihood, from his wife’s claims; and (2) to defend against his           
          wife’s reputation-damaging charges of marital infidelity which,             
          if found, might also have adversely affected the husband’s                  
          principal means of livelihood.                                              
               In finding that the expenses were not deductible, the                  
          Supreme Court rejected a test that looked to the consequences of            
          the litigation.  Instead of examining the taxpayer’s motives or             
          purposes for the undertaking the litigation, the Supreme Court              
          examined the origin and character of the claim.  In so doing, the           
          Supreme Court concluded that the claim arose out of the personal            
          relationship of marriage, rather than in a business context.                
               Similarly, under the facts before this Court, while                    
          petitioner’s primary purpose for bringing suit in Bar Court might           
          have been to protect his job and business reputation, his motives           
          for initiating the process are not considered.  Equally                     
          irrelevant are the consequences the suit may have had on                    
          restoring petitioner’s business reputation, had he prevailed.               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011