Case law

Ashforth v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 1306 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 27, 1934

The decedent, Elizabeth Milbank Ashforth, died testate on March 8,1930, and the petitioners herein are the duly appointed and qualified executors and ancillary executors of the last will and testament of the decedent. … Co., 292 U.S. 371 , and a claim for deductions must come clearly within the conditions prescribed.

United Nat'l Corp. v. Commissioner

33 B.T.A. 790 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 27, 1935

That cannot be qualified or varied from its natural import, but must speak for itself. … S. 58 , is also clearly, distinguishable, as appears from the following statement of the court: The evidence, as it appears in the record1, is much less contradictory than is usual in such cases where it is sought by parol

Mead Corp. v. Commissioner

38 B.T.A. 687 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 30, 1938

In the second place, the investment in the bank stock was clearly not dictated by the needs of the business, and these funds were accumulated in the year before us. … subdivision (c), must have regarded the tax imposed by section 104 as necessarily applicable to a corporation situated as was petitioner, and to have feared the ultimate avoidance of the surtax on individuals not by any immunity

Eisendrath v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 744 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 26, 1933

Three well qualified witnesses testified as to the marketability of the stock in question. Edwin W. … That case is clearly distinguishable from the instant proceeding.on the facts.

Brooks v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 71 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 5, 1931

Beach, supra. *82 The doctrine presently approved by the Supreme Court, at least in so far as it involves the taxing power of the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, is clearly stated in Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. … We have determined that in general intangibles may be properly taxed at the domicile of their owner and we can find no sufficient reason for saying that they are not entitled to enjoy an immunity against taxation at more

Kent v. Commissioner

26 B.T.A. 482 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 21, 1932

trust continues. * * * (c) to pay annuities, or total net sums in every year, to the persons and in the instalments next below named, or stated giving to each person named so long as he or she may live, save as hereinafter qualified … But clearly enough, we think, this section applies only to income paid as such to a beneficiary. And, as above shown, the sums received by Mrs.

Thompson v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 390 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 30, 1928

The petitioner owned all of the capital stock of the Company with the exception of two qualifying shares issued to directors in accordance with the corporate laws of Mississippi. … We, therefore, have no hesitancy in saying that under the evidence adduced the respondent was clearly in error in holding this amount to be a dividend. As to the $3,026.67 item, there may be some reason for doubt.

Hochstetter v. Commissioner

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

In the Eldridge case, Eldridge owned all the stock except qualifying shares of the Eldridge Buick Co., a corporation engaged in distributing and retailing automobiles. … He should furnish the reason for his inability to establish the identity and state the efforts he has made to do so.

Connally v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 920 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 11, 1935

This will was probated in Buncombe County, North Carolina, and the three daughters qualified as executrices. The pertinent provisions of the will read as follows: FERNIHURST Asheville, North Carolina, Feb. 26, 1912. … Briefly stated, the evidence in the case shows quite clearly that *882 the petitioner's property was rough cut-over mountain land and the *925 portion suitable for farming was negligible.

Gaskins v. Commissioner

4 B.T.A. 619 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 31, 1926

The United States Supreme Court clearly stated the law in the case of *2239 Neale v. … The parties to this appeal have brought themselves clearly within the requirements here stated. *2241 Walker v. Neil, 117 Ga. 733 ; 45 S.E. 387 , was a suit in equity brought by Mrs.

Fish v. Commissioner

45 B.T.A. 120 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 16, 1941

Decedent died testate a resident of New York City on August 13, 1936, and his widow instituted this proceeding as his duly qualified and acting executrix in behalf of the estate. … Such a doctrine would proceed further than seems warranted by any principle so far established. Even under such decisions as Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.

Kansas City S. Ry. v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 665 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 24, 1929

Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527 ] show the principle upon which is founded the rule that a claim for exemption from taxation must be clearly made out. … S. 509, 575 ; “ It is the settled doctrine of this court that an immunity from taxation by a State will not be recognized unless granted in terms too plain to be mistaken.” *694 Justice Brewer then cited language which we

Mepham v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 549 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 3, 1926

On the same date, to wit, December 4, 1919, all of the stock was issued to Williams, except four qualifying shares. … The testimony clearly establishes the fact that the taxpayer, in disposing of his business, sold not only the tangible property used in the business, but also the good will and other intangible assets, including the secret

Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 1152 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 31, 1935

The remaining three shares were owned by individuals to qualify them to act as directors of Norco. The tax basis of said 39,997 shares in the hands of the petitioner was, on January 8, 1929, $3,999,700. … There is nothing in the present case to establish that the activities were confined to the narrow scope that existed in the cited cases.

Friend v. Commissioner

40 B.T.A. 768 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 19, 1939

The petitioners, residents of Chicago, Ill., are the duly qualified and acting trustees of the trust estate created under the will of Henry Friend, deceased, who died a resident of Chicago, on August 1, 1932. … At the time that the will was drawn, and at the time of the decedent’s death, it was contemplated that the executors named in the will would be discharged and the trust estates established under the will would be created

Cushman v. Commissioner

40 B.T.A. 948 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 24, 1939

We think that the evidence shows very clearly that contemplation of death was not a motive for the creation of the trust. … Such clearly was one of the purposes which Mary W. Cushman had in the creation of the trust estate.

Green v. Commissioner

24 B.T.A. 1121 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 9, 1931

The present petitioning trustees are successors in such trust and the duly qualified trustees of said estate. … This limitation upon the trustees clearly precludes them from treating the profit from the sale of trust real estate as distributable income, as contended by the petitioner.

Belridge Oil Co. v. Commissioner

26 B.T.A. 810 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 16, 1932

Once the value of the land is established, the value of the option can be readily determined. … As such it has no value, for the reason that it is clearly distinguishable upon the facts, as fully pointed out herein. As a precedent, it is not binding.

Smith v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 422 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 20, 1933

The petitioner is the duly appointed and qualified executor of the estate of Milton Smith, deceased, and is a resident of Denver, Colorado. … Such testimony clearly shifts the burden *1137 of proof to the respondent, who has offered no evidence in rebuttal of the undisputed facts established by the documentary and *429 oral testimony adduced by the petitioner.

Couzens v. Commissioner

11 B.T.A. 1040 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 5, 1928

A. 817, or from gnaeraippmipns-of qualified witnesses, or from book value, or from recognized m'arket quotations o.r other data, must depend upon the nature of the property under consideration and the extent to which such … Clearly opinions might differ as to such price. .A common figure must be agreed up.on.