Haswell v. United States
United States Court of Claims
500 F.2d 1133 (1974), cert denied (1975)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Anthony Haswell (plaintiff) incorporated the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) to preserve and promote passenger rail service in the United States. Shortly after its incorporation, the NARP contracted with a well-connected lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. The NARP, with the assistance of its lobbying firm, testified before and submitted written materials to congressional committees concerning legislation that would affect passenger rail service. The NARP’s submissions and testimony were partisan in nature, motivated more to advocate for a particular interest—that of promoting passenger rail service—than to offer comprehensive, objective analysis. The NARP’s lobbying firm also organized parties and events at which the NARP entertained members of Congress, congressional staffers, and agents of administrative agencies with regulatory authority implicating passenger rail service. At those meetings, the NARP promoted the cause of passenger rail service. Haswell contributed substantial amounts of money to the NARP. Haswell applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a tax refund, arguing that his payments to the NARP were charitable deductions. The IRS denied the refund, and Haswell sued the government (defendant).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
