Anderson Steam Vulcanizer Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Anderson Steam Vulcanizer Co. v. Commissioner

6 B.T.A. 737, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3427

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1927

DocketDocket No. 3683.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 B.T.A. 737 (Anderson Steam Vulcanizer Co. 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

Anderson Steam Vulcanizer Co. v. Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 737, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3427 (bta 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[742]*742OPINION.

Sternhagen:

The petitioner contends that in 1916 it acquired a patent right worth $50,000 for stock of that value and that it has the right to annual deductions for patent exhaustion on this basis. The value of the patent was not proven and hence there is no cost basis for depreciation.

[743]*743The agreement of December 26, 1919, sets up an association essentially similar to that considered in Burk-Waggoner Oil Association v. Hopkins, 269 U. S. 110, and held to be taxable as a corporation. Petitioner’s counsel in his brief makes no reference to this case. We hold the organization to be an association within the meaning of the Eevenue Act of 1918. See Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. 144.

There is furthermore a question as to parties. If, as contendod, the petitioner is in reality three separate entities, how can they be joined as a single petitioner by one verified petition?

Judgment will Toe entered for .the respondent.

ARundell not participating.

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