Originally published on Forbes.com May 14th, 2013
Doctor Joyce Brothers died this week. She lived in Fort Lee, NJ. How did I not know that? I grew up in Fairview which is a long walk or a short bus ride from Fort Lee. When I was a kid, I was confused about Doctor Joyce Brothers. I thought there were two brothers whose last name was Joyce and that they were both doctors. Like those brothers named Halls who had beards and made cough drops. They must have been doctors. (I know that’s not accurate either. Give me a break. I was 10.) The help wanted ads were divided into “Help Wanted – Men”, “Help Wanted – Women” and a much smaller gender neutral section. Doctors were men. As apparently so were bankers, although not tellers.
If in the far future, the only documents from this era of American history that social historians have to work with are Tax Court decisions, I bet they could do a pretty fair job of reconstructing many of the changes in our culture. My rule is to write about decisions in the last couple of months and quite often I stick with the last couple of days, but the passing of Doctor Joyce Brothers has inspired me to get in the way-back machine and dust off Bank of Stockton v. Commissioner which is dated January 31, 1977. Doctor Joyce Brothers made quite a few cameo appearances on TV like this one from Happy Days
Doctor Brothers only made only one cameo appearance in Tax Court and that was in the Stockton case. It is curious, because the Stockton case is very revealing about the status of women even in the decade that included the International Year of The Woman – 1975, the first Michigan Womyn’s Musical Festival – 1976 and how can we forget “I Am Woman” – 1971
I can’t help but mention the first 15 women to graduate from the College of The Holy Cross in 1974. One of them was named Ann Marie Reilly, so she was right ahead me in the line. They had to change the school song
Used to start with “Hear thy sons in happy song”.
Different story with the Bank of Stockton. Here is why the bank was in Tax Court:
… the sole issue before the Court is whether petitioner is entitled to a business expense deduction for reimbursements made to certain shareholder-employees for expenses incurred by them in taking their wives to banking conventions.
Not spouses – wives.
Not to spoil the surprise, but the Bank won the case. There were good reasons to bring the wives along.
Annual meetings and other meetings of the ABA, CAB and IBA where wives are registered participants are organized with the attendance of the wives of bankers in mind, and it is customary for wives of bankers to attend them. Wives as registered participants, like their husbands, are expected to attend general business sessions of the meetings as well as special sessions presented especially for them. Social functions are planned for couples, and bankers without their spouses are few and out of place. Wives are not required or expected to attend special training, planning or legislative seminars held by these organizations throughout the year.
Bankers with the right image had wives with the right image.
Petitioner’s principal purpose for requiring the wives of its employees to attend the annual conventions of the ABA, CBA and IBA was to assist their husbands in developing and renewing personal contacts with other bankers. The wives’ activities were designed to aid petitioner’s employees to become better acquainted with other bankers. The wives entertained and socialized with other bankers and their wives, and acted as hostesses for petitioner’s hospitality rooms.
In addition, the wives’ presence and demeanor at the convention was important to petitioner for public relations. Petitioner’s image among other banks and bankers was in part reflected in the character and competence of its officers. The petitioner’s image also was reflected in part by its officers’ wives.
The general sessions, which the wives attended, had speakers such as Gerald Ford and Wilbur Mills. In the decision, only one woman is mentioned as one of the speakers. That would be “noted psychologist and columnist” Doctor Joyce Brothers.
The Tax Court’s logic in allowing the deduction was interesting
Wives of officers participated in the educational aspects of the convention and were instrumental to the success of the social activities. They both organized and hosted numerous convention activities and also entertained bankers with whom petitioner’s officers transacted business and from whom they sought advice. These activities aided petitioner’s officers in making new contacts and renewing old contacts.
Apparently, there was an implicit assumption that the banks were actually getting the work of two people – the banker and his wife – for the price of one. Those were the days. Can’t say I miss them.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.