Brooke v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
468 F.2d 1155 (1972)
- Written by Robert Taylor, JD
Facts
C. P. Brooke (plaintiff) was a physician with six school-aged children. In a gift-leaseback arrangement, Brooke irrevocably deeded to his children a property containing his medical offices, as well as other rental property. Brooke also had a state court appoint him as the guardian of his children, pursuant to state law concerning guardianships. Without a written lease, Brooke paid reasonable rent to himself in his capacity as the children’s guardian. Brooke also collected rent from the other tenants and used all of the rental income to pay for his children’s insurance, education, and other expenses. The federal tax commissioner (commissioner) (defendant) asserted that Brooke’s property transfer to his children did not serve a business purpose, and that his rent payments therefore did not qualify for the business-expense tax deduction. The commissioner also argued that the rental income used to provide for Brooke’s children should be treated as gross income, as Brooke personally had a legal obligation to pay for his children’s care. Brooke filed suit against the United States government (government), seeking a tax refund. The district court entered judgment in favor of Brooke, and the government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Ely, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.