Asbes-Tile Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Asbes-Tile Co. v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 195, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2911

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1926

DocketDocket No. 6404.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 B.T.A. 195 (Asbes-Tile 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

Asbes-Tile Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 195, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2911 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[197]*197OPINION.

Trammell:

There are two questions presented for decision. (1) Whether the amount agreed to be paid to the officers was reasonable compensation for services, and (2) whether it was paid or was an obligation incurred during the respective years.

The officers were to receive a commission of 15 per cent on the sales as compensation, but were not to draw out in excess of $100 per week each, in 1919, and $200 per week each, in 1920. We have no evidence as to the amount of sales made by either of the officers or the amount of commission they were entitled to. There is no evidence as to whether it equaled the amount they were permitted to draw out or not, nor is there any evidence as to the amounts actually drawn by the officers. The Commissioner has allowed as a deduction the amount shown by the return as the compensation of the members. We can not, on this evidence, find that the determination of the Commissioner was not correct, although the amount of the commission agreed to be paid the officers was reasonable compensation.

Jvdgment will be entered .for the Commissioner.

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

[197]*197OPINION.

Trammell:

There are two questions presented for decision. (1) Whether the amount agreed to be paid to the officers was reasonable compensation for services, and (2) whether it was paid or was an obligation incurred during the respective years.

The officers were to receive a commission of 15 per cent on the sales as compensation, but were not to draw out in excess of $100 per week each, in 1919, and $200 per week each, in 1920. We have no evidence as to the amount of sales made by either of the officers or the amount of commission they were entitled to. There is no evidence as to whether it equaled the amount they were permitted to draw out or not, nor is there any evidence as to the amounts actually drawn by the officers. The Commissioner has allowed as a deduction the amount shown by the return as the compensation of the members. We can not, on this evidence, find that the determination of the Commissioner was not correct, although the amount of the commission agreed to be paid the officers was reasonable compensation.

Jvdgment will be entered .for the Commissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 195, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asbes-tile-co-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack