# Wheelock v. Commissioner > United States Board of Tax Appeals · July 6, 1933 · 28 B.T.A. 611 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4493189 ## Case - **Full name:** MRS. R. L. WHEELOCK, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - **Court:** United States Board of Tax Appeals - **Decided:** July 6, 1933 - **Citations:** 28 B.T.A. 611; 1933 BTA LEXIS 1091 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Steknhagen - **Judges:** McMahoh, Trammell, McMahon, Lansdon, Black, Steenhagen, Steknhagen, Agree, Leech - **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4493189 ## Opinion text StekNhageN, dissenting: A closing agreement under section 606 may involve a composition of numerous detailed controversies between the taxpayer and the Government as to the items determining tax liability for the year. The liability agreed upon may reflect such *620 a give and take that no one of these items can be said to have been determined. Neither the original return nor the audit indicates the measure of the liability agreed upon. It is fair to assume that both were adjusted in reaching the final agreement. Without knowing more than that a return had been filed, that the unreduced cost basis of gain shown therein had been at first approved on an audit, and that a settlement had been embodied in a closing agreement under section 606, I could not say that the taxpayer is estopped to claim for the prior year the deduction to which he is otherwise lawfully entitled. Union Metal Mfg. Co., 1 B.T.A. 395 . While the taxpayer should not have both the 1923 deduction and the unreduced cost basis for 1924, and I should deny him the one if he had availed himself of the other, the double advantage ought to be established and not assumed, to support the denial. Trammell, McMahon, Black, and Leech agree with the above dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4493189. Public record. Not legal advice.