## Facts

- Ephraim Cross, an assistant professor at City College in New York, taught French, Spanish, and romance linguistics.
- In summer 1954, Cross, his wife, and their dog traveled by ship from New York, stopping briefly at multiple Mediterranean ports, and arrived in Marseilles about three weeks later.
- After arrival, Mrs. Cross continued traveling with a friend; Cross went to Paris.
- During the trip, Cross did not enroll in formal study or conduct formal research but reported activities such as visiting schools and cultural institutions, reading newspapers, listening to radio broadcasts, conversing with students and teachers, and attending political meetings.
- Cross returned to the United States in late September 1954.
- The Crosses claimed a $1,300 deduction on their 1954 joint income tax return for travel expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses under I.R.C. § 162(a), relying on the education-expense regulation (Treas. Reg. § 1.162-5) requiring that education be undertaken primarily to maintain or improve employment-related skills.
- In a refund suit, the district court granted summary judgment to the taxpayers based on Cross’s deposition and affidavits from professors asserting the value of foreign travel for language teachers.
- The United States opposed summary judgment, arguing the trip was a personal vacation, that factual disputes existed as to purpose and allocation of expenses, and that it was entitled to cross-examine the taxpayers and the affiants.

## Issues

1. Whether the record showed no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the travel expenses were primarily educational/business-related (and properly allocable) rather than personal, such that summary judgment for the taxpayers was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for trial.
- The court held that triable issues existed concerning the taxpayers’ motive and the character of the trip (educational/business versus vacation/personal).
- The court also held that factfinding was required regarding how, if at all, expenses should be apportioned between deductible and nondeductible purposes.
- The government was entitled to test the taxpayers’ and affiants’ assertions through trial procedures, including cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) is improper where genuine disputes of material fact remain.
- Claims turning on motive, intent, and the characterization of conduct or expenses commonly require trial because resolution depends on factfinding and permissible inferences.
- For travel claimed as deductible education or business expense, factual determinations may be required as to primary purpose and, where mixed purposes exist, allocation between deductible and personal components.
- When a party challenges affidavit-based proof on matters requiring credibility assessment and probing of underlying facts, cross-examination and trial factfinding may be necessary before judgment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a trial because the deductibility of the professor’s travel expenses depended on disputed factual questions about purpose and allocation, and those questions could not be resolved on deposition and affidavits alone under Rule 56.


Cross v. United States, 336 F.2d 431 (2d Cir. 1964)