Cross v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
336 F.2d 431 (1964)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Linguistics professor Ephraim Cross (plaintiff) filed a tax-refund suit against the United States government (defendant). Cross claimed that he was entitled to a deduction of $1,300 pursuant to § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The section provided that expenses for education are deductible if the expense is for the purpose of maintaining or improving skills required for employment, trade, or business. Cross argued that his travels to multiple Mediterranean and European countries in the summer of 1954 were for the purpose of maintaining his foreign-language skills. The government claimed that Cross was not entitled to the deduction because the travel was a vacation and, under § 162(c), a taxpayer’s expenditures for travel should generally be viewed as personal rather than educational. After Cross filed the suit, he moved for summary judgment. The district court reviewed the affidavits of several professors stating the necessity of foreign travel for a teacher of languages. The district court also reviewed the pretrial deposition of Cross, in which he explained that his travels were for educational purposes. After concluding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, the district court granted summary judgment. The government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
