Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersbta

10,000+ results

0.89s

  • Stokes v. Commissioner

    7 B.T.A. 375 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 16, 1927

    STOKES, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE RESPONDENT. Stokes v. Commissioner Docket No. 251. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 7 B.T.A. 375 ; 1927 BTA LEXIS 3194 ; June 16, 1927 , Promulgated *3194 In computing gain or loss on the sale of real property, petitioner claimed as part of cost an amount spent in litigation

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Nail v. Commissioner

    27 B.T.A. 33 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 9, 1932

    This principle is so familiar that citation or discussion of the many decisions of this Board and of the courts in which it is reiterated is unnecessary. … Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Texas 160 ; Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 107 Texas, 226 ; Waggoner Estate v. Wichita County, 273 U. S. 113 .

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gillespie v. Commissioner

    20 B.T.A. 1068 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 30, 1930

    the date of final decision by said Board. … Law v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Sheridan Meat Co. v. Commissioner

    10 B.T.A. 211 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 25, 1928

    SHERIDAN MEAT CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Sheridan Meat Co. v. Commissioner Docket No. 5493. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • George M. Cox, Inc. v. Commissioner

    44 B.T.A. 1232 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 12, 1941

    COX, INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. George M. Cox, Inc. v. Commissioner Docket No. 101847. … The Board adopts as its findings of fact the stipulation of the parties.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Philad Co. of Delaware v. Commissioner

    47 B.T.A. 565 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 19, 1942

    THE PHILAD COMPANY OF DELAWARE, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Philad Co. of Delaware v. Commissioner Docket No. 106896. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 47 B.T.A. 565 ; 1942 BTA LEXIS 676 ; August 19, 1942 , Promulgated *676 1.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Rollo v. Commissioner

    20 B.T.A. 799 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 12, 1930

    ROLLO, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. EDWARD N. WILEY, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. C. MARSHALL ROGERS, PETITIONER, v. … MAGILL, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Rollo v. Commissioner Docket Nos. 22477, 22482, 22484, 22485.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Harrison v. Commissioner

    30 B.T.A. 966 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 19, 1934

    The stipulated facts in this case and the conclusion reached by the Board in the companion case of J. M. … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will be entered under Rule 50.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Price v. Commissioner

    10 B.T.A. 1166 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 5, 1928

    PRICE, ADMINISTRATOR, ESTATE OF THOMAS LAWRENCE PRICE, PETITIONER, v. . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Price v. Commissioner Docket No. 21695. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 10 B.T.A. 1166 ; 1928 BTA LEXIS 3947 ; March 5, 1928 , Promulgated *3947 Deficiency held barred from assessment. Theodore B. Benson, Esq., for the petitioner. A. S.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Warner v. Commissioner

    7 B.T.A. 1292 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 7, 1927

    Fleming v. Commis sioner, 6 B. T. A. 900, and Baltzell v. Mitchell, 3 Fed. (2d) 428. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Shellabarger v. Commissioner

    14 B.T.A. 695 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 13, 1928

    Facts similar to those here were before the court in Bing v. … Petitioner has cited O'Malley-Keyes v. Eaton, 24 Fed. (2d) 436, followed in Young v. Gnichtel, 28 Fed. (2d) 789, as being controlling. The facts there are clearly distinguishable from those here.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hales-Mullaly, Inc. v. Commissioner

    46 B.T.A. 25 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 6, 1942

    HALES-MULLALY, INC., A CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Hales-Mullaly, Inc. v. Commissioner Docket No. 100853. … Deputy v. du Pont, supra.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Henry v. Commissioner

    8 B.T.A. 1089 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 29, 1927

    Ray v. Porter, 19 Fed. (2d) 541. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the respondent. TRUssell, Green, and Arundell dissent on the second point.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Dallas Title & Guaranty Co. v. Commissioner

    40 B.T.A. 1022 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 6, 1939

    Bowers v. Lawyers’ Mortgage Co., 285 U. S. 182 ; Lincoln Mortgage & Title Guaranty Co. v. Commissioner, 79 Fed. (2d) 585; Empire Title & Guarantee Co. v. United States, 101 Fed. (2d) 69. … United States v. Scott & Sons, Inc., 69 Fed. (2d) 728. Estate of William Steele, 34 B. T. A. 173, and cases there cited. On the issue of estoppel we hold in favor of the petitioner. Reviewed by the Board.

    Reversed on other grounds by Commissioner v. Dallas Title & Guaranty Co., 119 F.2d 211 (1941)Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Ben Ginsburg Co. v. Commissioner

    19 B.T.A. 81 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 27, 1930

    BEN GINSBURG CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Ben Ginsburg Co. v. Commissioner Docket No. 45556. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 19 B.T.A. 81 ; 1930 BTA LEXIS 2470 ; February 27, 1930 , Promulgated *2470 Affiliated corporations filing a consolidated return under the provisions of the Revenue Act of 1926 are entitled

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Pope v. Commissioner

    28 B.T.A. 1255 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 23, 1933

    Mente v. Eisner, 266 Fed. 161 ; Bedell v. Commissioner, 30 Fed. (2d) 622; Washburn v. Commissioner, 51 Fed. (2d) 949. … They, together with Miller, held the important executive offices of the company and they with Miller constituted a majority of its board of directors.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • JEFERSON v. COMMISSIONER

    40 B.T.A. 274 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 25, 1939

    JEFERSON, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. JEFERSON v. COMMISSIONER Docket No. 93586. … The analogy is not apparent to the Board. The respondent contends that the deduction is expressly denied by section 24(a)(4).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • 375 Park Ave. Corp. v. Commissioner

    23 B.T.A. 969 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 30, 1931

    375 PARK AVENUE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. 373 PARK AVENUE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. 375 Park Ave. Corp. v. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 23 B.T.A. 969 ; 1931 BTA LEXIS 1791 ; June 30, 1931 , Promulgated *1791 1.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Melick v. Commissioner

    6 B.T.A. 70 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 7, 1927

    MELICK, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Melick v. Commissioner Docket No. 7623. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 6 B.T.A. 70 ; 1927 BTA LEXIS 3603 ; February 7, 1927 , Promulgated *3603 The stock in a bank owned by the petitioner was worthless at the end of 1921 and the cost thereof was a proper deduction

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Duriron Co. v. Commissioner

    18 B.T.A. 554 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 20, 1929

    THE DURIRON CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Duriron Co. v. Commissioner Docket No. 23930. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 18 B.T.A. 554 ; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2020 ; December 20, 1929 , Promulgated *2020 Petitioner reported its income on the basis of a calendar year.

    Cited 6 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.