# Walz v. Commissioner

> United States Board of Tax Appeals · September 30, 1926 · 4 B.T.A. 1202

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4623600

## Case

- **Full name:** APPEAL OF LOUIS WALZ.
- **Court:** United States Board of Tax Appeals
- **Decided:** September 30, 1926
- **Citations:** 4 B.T.A. 1202; 1926 BTA LEXIS 2006
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Moeris
- **Cited by:** 0 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/4623600

## Opinion text

APPEAL OF LOUIS WALZ.
Walz v. Commissioner
Docket No. 6489.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
4 B.T.A. 1202 ; 1926 BTA LEXIS 2006 ;
September 30, 1926 , Decided
*2006 J. M. Cumming, C.P.A., for the petitioner.
Robert A. Littleton, Esq., for the Commissioner.
MORRIS
*1202 This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $16,934.15 for the calendar year 1917. The only question involved is the March 1, 1913, value of the stock of the Pure Oil Co.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The taxpayer is a resident of Oil City, Pa. In 1917 he sold 11,750 shares of the common stock of the Pure Oil Co. at $24.50 per share, which had been acquired by him prior to March 1, 1913.
The Commissioner fixed the March 1, 1913, value of this stock at $15.25 per share.
OPINION.
MORRIS: The taxpayer contends that the common stock of the Pure Oil Co. had a fair market value of $22.50 a share on March 1, 1913. He offered no evidence to support that value but called our attention to the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the case of , in which the court found that the March 1, 1913, value of that stock was $22.50 a share. He contends that that *1203 decision renders the question *2007 of value of the Pure Oil Co. stock res adjudicata.
The same question was raised and decided adversely to the taxpayer in the , and for the reasons therein given we render
Judgment for the Commissioner.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4623600. Public record. Not legal advice.