Weil v. Chu
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
120 A.D.2d 781, 501 N.Y.S.2d 515 (1986)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Russell T. Weil, Stuart S. Dye, Robert J. Hickey, and Ronald A. Capone (collectively, the attorneys) (plaintiffs) were attorneys who worked in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirlin, Campbell & Keating (the law firm). Because Weil and Capone were full partners and Hickey and Dye were junior partners in the law firm, all four received some share of the law firm’s profits. In addition to the Washington, D.C., office, the law firm had an office in New York City, and much of its income came from New York. None of the attorneys paid state income taxes in New York. The state of New York (defendant) issued deficiencies against the attorneys, arguing that the attorneys owed New York income tax on the portion of their income that derived from or was connected to New York. The attorneys contested the deficiency, arguing they were not liable for New York income tax because they did not practice law in New York. The state tax commission rejected the attorneys’ claims. The attorneys appealed, arguing that the application of New York state income tax to them violated several provisions of the United States Constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mikoll, 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.
