Miller v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
52 T.C. 752 (1969)
Facts
Andrew Miller (plaintiff) was a partner in White & Case. As a partner, Miller was entitled to a share of White & Case’s profits. In 1960 White & Case opened an office in Paris, France, and made Miller the managing partner. Miller was paid $20,000 a year for his work as managing partner in addition to his partnership share. The $20,000 salary was meant to be a guaranteed payment that, under § 707(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, Miller could treat as payment to a nonpartner. According to § 911(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, United States citizens living abroad may exclude income received from sources outside the United States from their gross income. On his income-tax returns for the years 1960, 1961, and 1962, Miller did not include his $20,000 salary or his partnership share in his gross income for the time he was working outside the United States. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) assessed a deficiency against Miller, arguing that Miller could only exclude payments from White & Case to the extent that the payments came from White & Case’s income from sources outside the United States. In making his determination, the Commissioner did not distinguish between Miller’s $20,000 salary and his partnership share. Miller petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simpson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 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.
