Opinion

E. Muelhoefer & Son v. Commissioner

  • 4 B.T.A. 586
  • 1926 BTA LEXIS 2250
Court
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Filed
Jul 30, 1926
Status
Published
Author
Littleton
On the bench
Sternhagen, Littleton, Trussell
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 67.1%

The opinion

*587 OPINION.

Littleton

: The petitioner contends that, at the time of the Commissioner’s audit, it had, and still has, complete books and records correctly reflecting its income, and that the Commissioner erred in using the percentage method of computing its income for the year 1920.

The Commissioner’s auditor testified that he was unable correctly to determine petitioner’s income from the books made available for his inspection, while an accountant employed by petitioner to make an audit and correct its method of bookkeeping testified that the petitioner’s income for 1920 could be correctly determined from its books.

In regard to the records which petitioner claimed to have, correctly reflecting its income, it was clearly incumbent upon it to disclose their contents to the Board in order that it might be in a position to judge of the correctness or otherwise of the Commissioner’s determination.

In the absence of such records or of any available evidence of the items entering into the computation of the petitioner’s income and disbursements during the year, the Board is manifestly unable to conclude just what the income really was, and is therefore not in a position to say that the determination of the Commissioner was erroneous.

Judgment for the Commissioner.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.