American Textiles, Inc. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

American Textiles, Inc. v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 186, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2497

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1925

DocketDocket No. 2477.

StatusPublished

This text of 2 B.T.A. 186 (American Textiles, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Textiles, Inc. v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 186, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2497 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[188]*188OPINION.

Green:

The execution and. performance of the agreement by the Smiths and Galbraiths was not a service the cost of which is a deductible expense. The expense was not an ordinary and necessary business expense, nor can it be called compensation for personal services. The exchange of stock was, if anything, a capital transaction. It was not in the minds of the parties a permanent exchange. The equivalent of dividends on their previous holdings of preferred stock was paid to the Smiths and Galbraiths. They participated in the earnings of the company as if they still held their preferred stock. In so far as receipts were concerned, they were no better or no worse off than if they held the preferred stock. Their priority as to assets in case of dissolution was temporarily less than that of holders of preferred stock. They were, to all intents and purposes, as they subsequently again became, the holders of preferred stock.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[188]*188OPINION.

Green:

The execution and. performance of the agreement by the Smiths and Galbraiths was not a service the cost of which is a deductible expense. The expense was not an ordinary and necessary business expense, nor can it be called compensation for personal services. The exchange of stock was, if anything, a capital transaction. It was not in the minds of the parties a permanent exchange. The equivalent of dividends on their previous holdings of preferred stock was paid to the Smiths and Galbraiths. They participated in the earnings of the company as if they still held their preferred stock. In so far as receipts were concerned, they were no better or no worse off than if they held the preferred stock. Their priority as to assets in case of dissolution was temporarily less than that of holders of preferred stock. They were, to all intents and purposes, as they subsequently again became, the holders of preferred stock.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 B.T.A. 186, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-textiles-inc-v-commissioner-bta-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack