Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
708 F.2d 1043 (1983)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. (M-D) (plaintiff) was a Tennessee trucking company that had, on several occasions between 1971 and 1975, trucks cited in Virginia for being overweight. Accordingly, M-D had paid fines, court costs, and liquidated damages on those occasions to keep M-D’s freight-hauling privileges in those Virginia jurisdictions. In 1975, M-D claimed the court costs and liquidated damages on its federal income tax return as ordinary and necessary business expenses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 162(a). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on behalf of the federal government (defendant), disallowed the deductions and assessed deficiencies. M-D paid that assessment, filed amended returns, claimed the amounts paid from 1971 to 1974 as deductions, and then filed suit for refunds. At the trial court level, the court found for the government, ruling that the damages from the weight violations were not necessary expenses. The logic was that M-D could have easily avoided the expenses by not violating the weight laws. M-D appealed, noting that prior caselaw had allowed a taxpayer convicted of fraud to claim settlement payments and legal expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lively, 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.