Case law

Union Plate & Wire Co. v. Commissioner

17 B.T.A. 1229 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 5, 1929

Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367 -375, 23 L. Ed. 449 . * * * In Consolidated Companies, Inc., 15 B. T. A. 645, we held that: All facts necessary to show jurisdiction in the Board must be pleaded and proved. … Reviewed by the Board.

Nicollet Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner

37 B.T.A. 350 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 17, 1938

Substantially the same rule was enunciated by the Supreme Court in City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U. S. 1 , and United States v. Ludey, 274 U. S. 295 , and has been applied by this Board in various cases. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered under Rule 50. SEC. 113.

Estate Planning Corp. v. Commissioner

37 B.T.A. 418 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 25, 1938

or preferred capital stock, and cites Commissioner v. … Also see Helvering v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co., 90 Fed. (2d) 971, affirming 33 B. T. A. 895, and Commissioner v. Proctor Shop, Inc., 82 Fed. (2d) 792, affirming 30 B. T. A. 721.

Whitehead v. Commissioner

24 B.T.A. 1111 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 8, 1931

From the assertion of this deficiency the petitioner appealed to this Board on October 28,1927. At the hearing of this case the respondent, upon authority of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crooks v. … Mary Allen Emery, Executrix v. Commissioner, 21 B. T. A. 1038; Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497 ; Knox v. McElligott, 258 U. S. 546 . Reviewed by the Board. Decison will be entered under Bule 50.

Harbison v. Commissioner

43 B.T.A. 1098 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 21, 1941

A petition for redetermination of petitioner’s tax liability for the year 1932 was filed with this Board (Docket !No. 83141). 9. … The disallowance of the claimed deduction is approved upon the authority of Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U. S. 212 ; Van Wart v. Commissioner, 295 U. S. 112 ; Malcolm G. Gibbs, 34 B. T. A. 1028; Monell v. Helvering (C.

New Process Cork Co. v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 1339 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 20, 1926

A. 202, and United States v. Anderson, 269 U. … The Board would not be justified in assuming that the court, without information or argument, intended to overthrow the established law that books of account are only evidentiary and not conclusive of liability, Doyle v.

Skaneateles Paper Co. v. Commissioner

29 B.T.A. 150 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 24, 1933

Stange v. United States, 282 U.S. 270 . … This point was decided adversely to the petitioner’s contention in McDonnell v.

Stegall v. Commissioner

24 B.T.A. 1231 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 22, 1931

In Balaban & Katz Corporation v. … Ed. 937 ; Idaho Power Co. v. Thompson (D. C.) 19 F. (2d) 547. * * * [See also W. *1235 S. Bogle & Co., Inc., et al. v. Commissioner, 26 Fed. (2d) 771; Boggs & Buhl v. Commissioner, 34 Fed. (2d) 859.

J. W. Allen & Co. v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 1135 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 1, 1926

The minutes further show the following: A special meeting of the Board of Directors of J. W. Allen & Co., pursuant to By-laws, was called by the Treasurer for May 20, 1918, at 2 P. … \V. Allen new officers be elected for the corporation, and it appearing that Mr. H. W. Allen presented his resignation as Secretary and Treasurer, and Mr. H. W. Allen being selected as Chairman of the meeting and 33. M.

Grant v. Commissioner

29 B.T.A. 760 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 16, 1934

California Civil Code, sec. 158; Wren v. Wren, 100 Cal. 276 ; 34 Pac. 775 ; Smith v. Smith, 47 Cal. App. 650 ; 191 Pac. 60 ; Gray v. Perils, 76 Cal. App. 511 ; 245 Pac. 221 ; Rayburn v. Rayburn, 54 Cal. … In Earl v.

Mammoth Life & Acci. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

6 B.T.A. 869 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 15, 1927

While it is exceedingly doubtful whether the fund claimed as a reserve, is a reserve, as that word is used in the taxing statute (United States v. Boston Insurance Co., 269 U. … It is a question to be resolved by the Commissioner in the first instance, and then by the Board on appeal on the facts presented. *871 The only evidence before the Board on this question, is the testimony of the petitioner

Oilbelt Motor Co. v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 831 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 31, 1929

Loewy & Son v. Commissioner, 31 Fed. (2d) 652, in which the court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals (11 B. T. A. 596). The court followed the decision in the ease of Botany Worsted Mills v. … Cf., also, Swift & Co. v. United States, 67 Ct. Cls. 322, and West Virginia Rail Co. v. Jewett-Bigelow & Brooks Coal Co., 26 Fed. (2d) 503.

Brading v. Commissioner

17 B.T.A. 436 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 24, 1929

It is unquestionably settled by Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. … Eisner v. Macomber, supra. The case of United States v. Mellon, 281 Fed. 645 , and United States v.

Champion Paper & Fibre Co. v. Glander

52 Ohio Law. Abs. 504 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 27, 1948

With respect to the first assignment of error it need only be said, as pointed out by this Board in its decision on this ■question in the case of the Chillicothe Paper Company v. … And under the authority of the decision in the case of the Chillicothe Paper Company v. Glander, Tax Commissioner, above referred to, and of the decision of the Board in the earlier case of C. H. Gosiger Machine Co. v.

Segall v. Commissioner

38 B.T.A. 43 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 12, 1938

That bonds are “securities” was held in Helvering v. Watts, 296 U. S. 387 . In Burnham v. Commissioner, 86 Fed. (2d) 776; certiorari denied, 300 U. … Reviewed by the Board. Decisions of no transferee liability will be entered. SEC. 112. RECOGNITION OB' GAIN OR LOSS.

Hochstetter v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 791 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 14, 1936

A. 918; affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit without opinion, 83 Fed. (2d) 1007; Marston v. Commissioner, 75 Fed. (2d) 936; Chisholm v. Commis sioner, 79 Fed. (2d) 14; Ewing Hill v. … Supp. 798; Commissioner v. Neaves, 81 Fed. (2d) 947; United States v. Huntington Laboratories, Inc., 82 Fed. (2d) 356; Commissioner v. McCreery, 83 Fed. (2d) 817.

St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 76 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 20, 1930

Williams v. Hund, 302 Mo. 451 ; 258 S. W. 703; Judson v. Bennett, 233 Mo. 607 ; 136 S. W. 681 ; West v. Bailey, 196 Mo. 517 ; 94 S. W. 273 . Cf. Nauts v. Clymer, 36 Fed. (2d) 207. In West v. … The situation here is that the entity against which the taxes in question were asserted, and to which the deficiency notice was mailed, no longer exists, has not petitioned the Board and is not before the Board.

G. M. Standifer Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 184 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 27, 1934

Local statutes are not decisive of what constitutes income, Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103 , nor what deductions may be taken, Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U.S. 333 . … Deficiencies proposed by the respondent were litigated before this Board.

Platt v. Commissioner

35 B.T.A. 472 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 11, 1937

On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the Board’s decision was affirmed in Commissioner v. Ten Eyck, 76 Fed. (2d) 515. … The Supreme Court of California so ruled with respect to the Board of State Harbor Commissioners in Denning v.

Champlin v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 587 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 14, 1934

The Board’s decision was reversed, April 11, 1934, Champlin v. Commissioner, 71 Fed. (2d) 23, and the proceeding was remanded “ for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.” … It is, so far as this Board is concerned, final.