Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Donald H. BROWN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee, 1975 — 523 F.2d 365 · caselaw · US
Tax
Donald H. BROWN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
523 F.2d 365·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Before VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Donald H. BROWN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 74-1989.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 1975.
Decided Sept. 24, 1975.
James Q. Fisher, Encino, Cal., and Joel Kreiner, Hollywood, Cal., for appellant.
Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert E. Andrews, Jonathan S. Cohen and Arthur L. Bailey, Attys., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal the appellant-taxpayer contends that the Tax Court erred in denying as a tax deduction for medical expense the cost of Scientology “processing” for himself and his wife, including transportation for his wife’s attendance at the.Hubbard College of Scientology in Sussex, England, and in Edinborough, Scotland. We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the judgment of the Tax Court on the basis of its well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion. See Rule 14.