opinion: HOOVER MOTOR EXPRESS CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 95.
  Argued January 29-30, 1958.
  Decided March 17, 1958.
  Judson Harwood argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
  Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Rice, Joseph F. Goetten and Meyer Rothwacks.
  Mr. Justice Clark
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  The sole issue here — the deductibility for tax purposes of fines paid by a trucker for inadvertent violations of state maximum weight laws — is identical to one of the issues decided today in No. 109, Tank Truck Rentals, Inc., v. Commissioner, ante, p. 30.
  Most of the overweight fines paid by petitioner during 1951-1953 inclusive, the tax years in question, were incurred in Tennessee and Kentucky, two of the nine States in which petitioner operated. During the relevant period, both Tennessee and Kentucky imposed maximum weight limitations of 42,000 pounds over-all and 18,000 pounds per axle, considerably less than those in the other seven States. Petitioner’s fines resulted largely from violations of the axle-weight limits rather than violations of the over-all truck weight limits. The District Court found that such violations usually occurred because of a shifting of the freight load during transit.
  After paying the taxes imposed, petitioner sued in the District Court for a refund, claiming that no frustration of state policy would result from allowance of the deductions because (1) the violations had not been willful, and (2) all reasonable precautions had been taken to avoid the violations. The District Court held that even if petitioner had acted innocently and had taken all reasonable precautions, allowance of the deductions would frustrate clearly defined state policy. Judgment was entered for the Commissioner, 135 F. Supp. 818, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the same reasoning. 241 F. 2d 459. We granted certiorari, 354 U. S. 920 (1957), in conjunction with the grant in Tank Truck Rentals, Inc., v. Commissioner, supra, and Commissioner v. Sullivan, ante, p. 27, both decided today.
  Wholly apart from possible frustration of state policy, it does not appear that payment of the fines in question was “necessary” to the operation of petitioner’s business. This, of course, prevents any deduction. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U. S. 488 (1940). The violations usually-resulted from a shifting of the load during transit, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that the shifting could not have been controlled merely by tying down the load or compartmentalizing the trucks. Other violations occurred because petitioner relied on the weight stated in the bill of lading when picking up goods in small communities having no weighing facilities. It would seem that this situation could have been alleviated by carrying a scale in the truck.
  Even assuming that petitioner acted with all due care and without willful intent, it is .clear that allowance of the deduction sought by petitioner would severely and directly frustrate state policy. Tank Truck Rentals, Inc., v. Commissioner, supra. As in Tank Truck, the statutes involved here do not differentiate between innocent and willful violators.
  Affirmed.
  "SEC. 23. DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.
  “In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: “(a) Expenses.—
  “(1) Trade or business expenses.—
  “(A) In General. — All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business . . . 53 Stat. 12, as amended, 56 Stat. 819.
  Ky. Rev. Stat., 1953, § 189.222; Williams’ Tenn. Code, 1934 (1952 Cum. Supp. to 1943 Repl. Vol.), § 1166.33.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.