Vanicek v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
85 T.C. 731 (1985)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois, was established to acquire and hold forested lands for the purpose of protection, preservation, education, and recreation. The district selected certain employees to act as resident watchmen. Employees serving as watchmen were required to live in residences strategically located within the district’s more than 64,000 acres of land. Although watchmen were not paid additional compensation, they were allowed to live in the residences rent-free. Resident watchmen’s duties included maintaining a phone line; responding to emergency calls; remaining on-site during fire season; patrolling their assigned area for fires, hunters, vandalism, dumping, and encroachments; and submitting monthly reports. Edward Vanicek (plaintiff) worked as a maintenance supervisor at the district’s central garage in downtown Chicago. Vanicek also served as a resident watchman. Vanicek and his wife resided on district property rent-free. At one point, Vanicek was responsible for 824 acres, which he patrolled two to three times per week. Vanicek did not report the fair rental value of the housing provided by the district on his federal income taxes. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (defendant) assessed deficiencies. Vanicek filed a petition with the tax court challenging the commissioner’s determination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nims, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.

