Appeal of Jones

Board of Tax Appeals

Appeal of Jones

4 B.T.A. 828

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 15, 1926

DocketDocket No. 1820

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 B.T.A. 828 (Appeal of Jones) 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 Jones, 4 B.T.A. 828 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question of whether the Commissioner correctly denied the petitioner the right to report, in his returns’ for the years involved, only one-half of the income of tbt-marital community, is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the Board’s decision in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

The petitioner alleged that he was entitled to a deduction for the purpose of excess profits tax imposed for the year 1917 of not less than 9 per cent, for the reason that his farming and other business operations yielded a net income for the pre-war years in excess of 9 per cent on his invested capital, and that he was entitled to have his annual income for the pre-war period determined under section 205 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1917. No evidence was submitted in support of this allegation of error.

Judgment for the Commissioner.

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

OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question of whether the Commissioner correctly denied the petitioner the right to report, in his returns’ for the years involved, only one-half of the income of tbt-marital community, is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the Board’s decision in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

The petitioner alleged that he was entitled to a deduction for the purpose of excess profits tax imposed for the year 1917 of not less than 9 per cent, for the reason that his farming and other business operations yielded a net income for the pre-war years in excess of 9 per cent on his invested capital, and that he was entitled to have his annual income for the pre-war period determined under section 205 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1917. No evidence was submitted in support of this allegation of error.

Judgment for the Commissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 B.T.A. 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-jones-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack