Frank Handfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Tax Court
23 T.C. 633 (1955)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Frank Handfield (plaintiff) was a nonresident alien living in Canada. Handfield manufactured picture postcards in Canada that were called Folkards. Handfield operated as Folkard Company of America, but Handfield’s business was a sole proprietorship. During the time in question, Handfield visited the United States for 24 days over four trips. Folkards were made in Canada from Canadian materials. The postcards were distributed in the United States solely by American News Company, Inc. Handfield signed a contract with American News Company under which American News Company had exclusive distribution rights of Folkards through mutually agreeable American cities. The contract controlled the price of the sale of Folkards to American News Company, the price of Folkards on sale to the public, and returns of any unused or unsold Folkards. Payment was then to be issued by American News Company to Handfield by check sent to Canada. The issue in this case was whether Handfield was engaged in business in the United States during the year in question. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) believed that Handfield was so engaged and accordingly found a deficiency of $639.67 in Handfield’s taxes paid. Handfield asserted that he sold the cards to American News Company in Canada and was not doing business in the United States.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arundell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.