Geary v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
235 F.3d 1207 (2000)
Robert Geary (plaintiff) was a police officer in San Francisco. In 1992, after the San Francisco Police Department (the Department) encouraged officers to engage in creative community policing, Geary started patrolling with a ventriloquist’s dummy called Officer Brendan O’Smarty. Geary used Officer O’Smarty to break down barriers between the police and the neighborhood he patrolled and gained national media coverage. The Department told Geary to get rid of Officer O’Smarty. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors interceded and passed a resolution asking the mayor to tell the Department to allow Geary to patrol with Officer O’Smarty. The mayor ignored the resolution. Geary then decided to appeal to voters, forming a committee and circulating a petition for a ballot initiative that would make it a city policy to allow Geary to patrol with Officer O’Smarty. Geary spent over $11,000 promoting the petition and deducted the amount on his income-tax return as business-related advertising expenses. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined that Geary could not deduct the expenses related to his petition because they were lobbying expenses, and § 162(e)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code disallowed deductions on any amount spent in connection with an attempt to influence the public. Geary argued that his goal with the ballot measure was to increase awareness of his community-policing efforts, not to influence the public. Geary petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination, and the tax court, agreeing with the Commissioner, held that the expenses were not deductible because they were lobbying expenses designed to influence the public with respect to a legislative matter. Geary appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 711,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.