Case law

Clovis v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 646 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 23, 1935

Hoge, is the duly qualified and acting executrix of the estate of Arthur K. Hoge, deceased, under the authority of the County Court of Ohio County, West Virginia. About 1925 C. E. … However, the evidence establishes that this was merely for convenience and that the reason for using this form was because it was in common usage in the community.

Peale v. Commissioner

13 B.T.A. 1101 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 17, 1928

Peale are the duly qualified and acting executors of the estate of said John W. Peale, deceased, with *3112 offices at No. 15 William Street, New York, N.Y. On or about June 15, 1918, the said John W. … It is true that during the year 1917, the taxpayer conducted other businesses which required the use of capital, and that all of his funds were kept in the same bank account or accounts, but it is also clearly established

Carter v. Commissioner

36 B.T.A. 60 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 8, 1937

Ada Davis Burkham is the duly qualified and acting executrix of the estate of Robert Burkham, deceased, who died a resident of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, on August 12, 1932. … If it was meant to say that the money out of which the sum in controversy was paid to the decedent's estate was not first "received" by the partnership it is contrary to the facts otherwise clearly established by the record

City Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 719 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 27, 1929

It is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor of the estate of Louis A. Pires, who died July 3, 1922, a resident of Dallas. … Nothing in the record can be taken to establish that the transaction discussed would not in any event fall under *2554 the restrictions of this section.

Adams v. Commissioner

23 B.T.A. 71 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 7, 1931

Even though we think it clearly established that the specifications of a patent are addressed to those skilled in the art, we do think *2007 that imperfect specifications, even though possible of correction by one skilled … At that time the automobile industry was well established.

Highland v. Commissioner

43 B.T.A. 598 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 13, 1941

These three persons qualified as executors and testamentary trustees under the will. Shortly thereafter disagreements developed between Highland and the two other executors which resulted in a suit by Cecil B. … We think that clearly in these circumstances the expense was chargeable against the estate and was not deductible from its gross income in the taxable year.

Guaranty Trust Co. v. Commissioner

35 B.T.A. 916 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 23, 1937

The intention to give is often established by the most satisfactory evidence, although the gift fails. … It was clearly not Peterson's intention to give up present and complete control over the money used in these *833 transactions.

Mitchell v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 1093 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 6, 1935

No mere exercise of the art of lexicography can alter the essential nature of an act or a thing; and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such. … Not only is it never presumed, but the ordinary preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to establish such a charge.

Plunkett v. Commissioner

41 B.T.A. 700 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 29, 1940

We are of the opinion that the legal principles established by the above cited cases have no application to this case. … The above indicates clearly that the Massachusetts court found that the trustee committed a breach of trust and surcharged the trustee $500,000.

Pompeian Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 825 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 18, 1925

It was incorporated in the year 1905 with capital stock of $100,000, for the purpose of acquiring and continuing the business established by one F. W. … The whole arrangement and the transactions clearly show *832 that they were for the sole purpose of insuring to Stecher and his wife practically all the profits of the taxpayer.

Phipps v. Commissioner

43 B.T.A. 1010 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 19, 1941

The foregoing clearly shows, in our opinion, *1459 that there was a fair market for the preferred stock. … Fair market value is evidenced here by established market price.

Lester v. Commissioner

19 B.T.A. 549 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 11, 1930

One qualifying share was placed in the name of the petitioner and he was made a director of the company and general counsel. He continued his law practice, but gave much of his time to the Fleischmann Co. business. … The total amounts are clearly not deductible. No basis for segregation or allocation of the *559 total amounts was suggested and we can think of none. The entire amount must be disallowed.

Marquissee v. Commissioner

11 B.T.A. 334 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 30, 1928

It, however, clearly indicates that it was not the intention of Congress to tax compensation for personal services rendered by an officer or employee of a State. … The Commissioner's office is supplies with competent counsel and experts who are qualified to take care of its interests and who should be held responsible for the conduct of its affairs.

Eckhart v. Commissioner

33 B.T.A. 426 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 12, 1935

Petitioner is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor of the estate of Bernard A. Eckhart, deceased. … In the case at bar the evidence clearly establishes that beginning in 1908 the decedent adopted a policy, thereafter consistently followed to and including the year 1930, of making substantial gifts inter vivos to the members

Empire Mach. Co. v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 1099 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 21, 1929

Basis for gain or loss on the sale in 1919 of certain foreign patent rights held not to have been established. 3. Exhaustion of alleged cost of certain contracts denied. Herbert Knox Smith, Esq., and Norman E. … We regard each of these witnesses as well qualified to express an opinion of value.

Schoenheit v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 33 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 7, 1928

Karl von Ruck, a resident of Asheville, N.C., died November 5, 1922, testate, and William Schoenheit and Karl Bishopric, the duly appointed, qualified and acting executors, have filed the petitions for a redetermination both … The decedent was a cultured German physician, who for a great number of years resided at Asheville, N.C., where he had established a tubercular sanatorium.

Belfast Inv. Co. v. Commissioner

17 B.T.A. 213 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 11, 1929

Dickey was president of the Ontario Realty Co. and owned all its capital stock except two shares held by directors for qualifying purposes. … If its invalidity were established, of course the assessment would not have to be paid at all.

Bekins Household Shipping Co. v. Commissioner

13 B.T.A. 353 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 13, 1928

Lancaster held his share merely to qualify as a corporate director. Par value of these shares was $100. *355 No other changes in stock ownership occurred during the years herein involved. … Bateman and Taylor also established contracts for Ring through introductions, references, etc.

HEYMAN v. COMMISSIONER

44 B.T.A. 1009 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 17, 1941

The sole issue as originally drawn is the inclusion in the petitioner's income of the income from a trust established by him on March 14, 1931, for the benefit of his wife. … Thus the power to revest in the grantor any part of the corpus is clearly vested in him by the terms of the trust instrument.

Gowran v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 820 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 27, 1935

The petitioner, Edith Rose Suddard, is the duly qualified executrix *822 of the estate of Thomas W. Suddard, deceased, who died testate September 11, 1931. *887 She also resides at Two Rivers, Wisconsin. … That fact sustains the Board's conclusion that the second prerequisite, above, to the exemption of that dividend from tax, was not there established.