Appeal of Gude Bros., Kieffer Co.

2 B.T.A. 1029
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 1925
DocketDocket No. 3273
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 B.T.A. 1029 (Appeal of Gude Bros., Kieffer Co.) 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
Appeal of Gude Bros., Kieffer Co., 2 B.T.A. 1029 (bta 1925).

Opinion

[1030]*1030OPINION.

James:

The taxpayer claims the allowance of a reserve for anticipated legal expenses. Eeserves are not allowable deductions from gross income, except where explicitly so provided by the statute. Appeal of William J. Ostheimer, 1 B. T. A. 18; Appeal of Consolidated Asphalt Co., 1 B. T. A. 79; Appeal of Uvalde Co., 1 B. T. A. 932; Appeal of Morrison-Ricker Mfg. Co., 2 B. T. A. 1008.

The taxpayer claims a deduction on account of certain concrete flooring and plumbing apparently put in its building during the taxable year. The petition contains allegations of fact which if true would seem to indicate that the facilities so placed in the building might be subject to amortization as war facilities. The taxpayer, however, contented itself with stipulating that certain facts set forth in a certain letter of the Bureau of Internal Kevenue should be accepted as the facts in the appeal.' That letter contains no statement concerning the nature of these improvements, and, under the facts of record, the determination of the Commissioner must be approved.

What is stated above with respect to concrete flooring and plumbing applies also to the creamery purchased at Eagle Grove, Iowa, if all the facts alleged in the taxpayer’s petition were in evidence. Under the facts which are in evidence, the position taken by the Commissioner is manifestly correct, namely, that the loss on the transaction was realized only when the property was disposed of.

The above statement is also trae of the last item representing the extraordinary depreciation on horses, wagons, and automobiles.

The taxpayer in this appeal, as to the two principal items of deductions other than the extraordinary depreciation apparently received credit, first for the legal expenses in a later year, and second for the loss on the Eagle Grove Creamery in 1920, in which year the Commissioner’s deficiency letter indicates that an overassessment was credited.

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

Related

Bane v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 31 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Manistique Lumber & Supply Co. v. Commissioner
29 B.T.A. 26 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1933)
Gude Bros., Kiefer Co. v. Commissioner
2 B.T.A. 1029 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 B.T.A. 1029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-gude-bros-kieffer-co-bta-1925.