Fred W. Amend Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
454 F.2d 399 (1971)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Fred W. Amend Co. (the company) (plaintiff) was a candy manufacturer started by Fred W. Amend. In 1954 Amend, now the company’s treasurer and chairman of the board of directors, began consulting with R. M. Halverstadt, a Christian Science practitioner. Amend paid Halverstadt to help him think through business and personal problems, and the company reimbursed Amend for the fees associated with the business-related consultations. In 1964 the company hired Halverstadt as a consultant for employees of the company to discuss best approaches to business problems. Amend was the only employee who worked with Halverstadt. Amend would discuss business issues with Halverstadt, and Halverstadt would talk Amend through the issues. Halverstadt did not offer any concrete advice or solutions, instead talking and praying with Amend to help Amend achieve greater clarity and spiritual awareness. The company deducted the amount it paid Halverstadt from its income taxes as business expenses. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) disallowed the tax deductions because, the Commissioner reasoned, Halverstadt’s compensation was a personal expense, not a business expense. The United States Tax Court upheld the Commissioner’s disallowance, arguing that Amend received inherently personal benefits from Halverstadt that were tied to Amend’s spirituality. The company appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Castle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.