- 24 -
context is different, as we noted in our discussion of Ostrom v.
Commissioner, supra. The California Court imposed punishment and
explained its determination. Its explanation and determination
are not in substantive conflict with our conclusion that
petitioner’s actions arose out of her efforts to produce or
collect income, or to manage, conserve, or maintain property held
for the production of income. Meredith v. Commissioner, 47 T.C.
441 (1967), which respondent cites for the proposition that the
expenses of a personal vendetta are not deductible, illustrates
why we have concluded that the instant case had not yet
progressed to the vendetta stage.
In Meredith the sequence was as follow:
1949--taxpayer sued John Deere Plow Co. for breech of an
oral agency sales contract. Taxpayer’s suit was
dismissed. 89 F. Supp. 787 (SD Ia. 1950), affd. 185
F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1950).
1952--taxpayer sued Deere to enforce an association
agreement. Taxpayer’s suit was dismissed by order;
affd. 206 F.2d 196 (8th Cir. 1953).
--taxpayer sued Deere to enforce a contract.
Taxpayer’s suit was dismissed by order; affd. 244 F.2d
9 (8 Cir., 1957).
--Deere sued taxpayer for injunction to prevent more
suits. Judgment for Deere, granting injunction;
affd. 261 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1958).
1960--taxpayer sued Federal Judge involved in 1957 and 1958
affirmances noted supra. Order granting summary
judgment to that Judge; affd. 286 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.
1960).
1960--taxpayer sued Deere and Deere’s former counsel.
Taxpayer held in contempt for violating injunction.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011