Case law

Henry v. Commissioner

47 B.T.A. 843 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 7, 1942

Freuler v. Helvering, supra. … Blair v. Commissioner, supra.

Ross v. Commissioner

37 B.T.A. 928 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 26, 1938

A. 222; affd., per curiam, Helvering v. Fuhlage, 79 Fed. (2d) 998. See also Marry H. Walton, 37 B. T. A. 620, and cases cited. … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will be entered wider Bule SO. Art. 292.

Palladium Amusement Co. v. Commissioner

37 B.T.A. 149 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 21, 1938

The Board rejected this theory and approved the deficiency determined by respondent. The decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Carrano v. Commissioner, supra. … On appeal, the decision was reversed in Wolf v. Com missioner, supra. The same question was presented and like decisions rendered by the Board in Christian Gandhl Co., 34 B. T.

Leiphart Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Bowers

77 Ohio Law. Abs. 225 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 30, 1957

Playhouse Restaurant v. Peck, Tax Commr., 159 Oh St at page 52, 50 O. O. 26, has this to say at page 55: “The above-quoted portion of §5546-9a GC (now §5739.13 R. … The Board of Tax Appeals, therefore, finds that the final order of the Tax Commissioner was in all respects correct and proper and legal, and said Board hereby affirms the final order of the Tax Commissioner.

Smathers Power Typewriter Co. v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 327 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 8, 1933

This last seems to have been generally adopted by the courts and this Board. … In Lansdowne Realty Trust v.

DURAND-MCNEIL-HORNER CO. v. COMMISSIONER

30 B.T.A. 769 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 18, 1934

In Monarch Electric & Wire Co. v. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment mill ~be entered for the respondent.

Southern Cal. Rock & Gravel Co. v. Commissioner

26 B.T.A. 296 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 8, 1932

In such circumstances, we think this Board has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and redetermine the deficiency. … Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365 ; Galbraith v. McDonald, 123 Minn. 208 ; 143 N. W. 353 ; and T. B. Hoffer, supra.

Gullett v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 1067 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 16, 1935

V. Board, 18 B. T. A. 650; Old Colony Trust Co. et al., Administrators, 22 B. T. A. 1062; Eakins v. United States, 36 Fed. (2d) 961; Moran v. Commissioner, 67 Fed. (2d) 601, affirming 26 B. T. A. 1154. … Beviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the petitioners.

Schulz v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 419 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 21, 1928

ARTjndell: Counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing and in his brief, has asked that we find that the board of directors of the W. F. … Barrett v. King, 181 Mass. 476 ; 63 N. E. 934 ; Longyear v. Hardman, 219 Mass. 405 ; 106 N. E. 1014 .

Sears, Roebuck & Co. Employees' Savings & Profit Sharing Pension Fund v. Commissioner

17 B.T.A. 22 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 31, 1929

A similar implication is found in Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223 . … To the same effect is the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in *28 Willcuts v. Ordway, 19 Fed. (2d) 917.

Duggan v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 482 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 4, 1927

In Nichols v. … Alsop, Executor, v. Commissioner, 7 B. T. A. 848. Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered on 15 days’ notice, wider Bule 50.

American Locker Co. v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 408 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 21, 1930

Murdock: The petitioner can not successfully contend before this Board that section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 is unconstitutional. Henry Cappeilini, 14 B. T. A. 1269. See also Phillips v. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will T)e entered for the petitioner,

Hollingsworth v. Commissioner

27 B.T.A. 621 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 31, 1933

Aiken v. Commissioner, 35 Fed. (2d) 620. … Iowa Bridge Co. v. Commissioner, 39 Fed. (2d) 777; Bedell v. Commis sioner, 30 Fed. (2d) 622.

Howard Paper Co. v. Commissioner

43 B.T.A. 545 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 11, 1941

The respondent relies upon Helvering v. Jane Holding Corporation, 109 Fed. (2d) 933; certiorari denied, 310 U. S. 653 , and Beacon Auto Stores, Inc., 42 B. T. A. 703, which followed Helvering v. … That was the point which the Board emphasized as of controlling importance.

Pioneer Box Co. v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 488 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 4, 1927

Arundell: The facts in this case relating to the jurisdictional question, it will be readily noted, are on all fours with those in Fort Pitt Spring & Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B. T. … Reviewed by the Board.

Chevy Chase Land Co. v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 150 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 18, 1936

As this Board said in Houbigant, Inc., 31 B. T. … That this is the correct rule is evidenced by many decisions of the courts and this Board. Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U. S. 359 ; Excelsior Printing Co., 16 B. T.

Lockhart v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 732 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 10, 1935

. *735 In Bliss v. Commissioner, 68 Fed. (2d) 890; affirmed by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will be entered under Rule 50,

Prime v. Commissioner

39 B.T.A. 487 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 24, 1939

See also, Blair v. First Trust & Savings Bank, 39 Fed. (2d) 462; Helvering v. Martin-Stubblefield, In c., 71 Fed. (2d) 944; San Jacinto Life Insurance Co., 34 B. T. A. 186; T. Harvey Ferris, 38 B. T. A. 312; Hart v. … United States, 94 Fed. (2d) 77; Mellinger v. United States, 21 Fed.Supp. 964; Salomon v. State Tax Commission, 278 U.

Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. v. Commissioner

46 B.T.A. 495 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 10, 1942

by the decision of the state board. … The Board denied the deductibility. On appeal the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Jagels v.

Richardson v. Commissioner

9 B.T.A. 875 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 27, 1927

Petitioner’s claim for the loss on account of the obsolescence of good will is disallowed under the decision of the court in Red Wing Malting Co. v. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.