Ayer v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Ayer v. Commissioner

6 B.T.A. 152, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3578

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedFebruary 18, 1927

DocketDocket No. 8184.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 B.T.A. 152 (Ayer 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

Ayer v. Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 152, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3578 (bta 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[153]*153OPINION.

Phillips:

Upon the hearing counsel for the parties submitted in evidence the Bureau letter setting out the basis for the computation of the deficiency. The petitioner proved the sales price, the numbers of the certificates delivered, and the original cost of 300 shares evidenced by the certificates of stock which were delivered upon the sale and rested. The Commissioner then called to the stand the two witnesses who had testified on behalf of the petitioner and also counsel for the petitioner. Their testimony was to the effect that they did not know whether or not any rights to subscribe for stock had been issued in 1920 by the First National Bank of Boston to its stockholders, or whether petitioner had acquired any stock in 1920 by reason of the exercise of any such rights. Upon this record the deficiency determined by the Commissioner must be approved.

The original cost of stock is not necessarily the basis for determining profit and loss. This cost may be increased by the payment of assessments or decreased by liquidating dividends, stock dividends, or the exercise of rights to subscribe to stock, which rights the Supreme Court, in Miles v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 259 U. S. 247; 42 Sup. Ct. 483; 3 Am. Fed. Tax Rep. 3168, held to be essentially analagous to a stock dividend.

There was no dispute between the Commissioner and the petitioner as to the originál cost of the stock acquired before 1920 or as to the selling price of the stock sold. The sole issue was whether the original cost was decreased by the exercise of stock rights in 1920. The Commissioner having found that there was such an exercise of stock rights and the petitioner having failed to submit any evidence upon the sole question in dispute, the petitioner has failed to establish a cost basis other than that determined by the Commissioner.

Decision will be entered for the Oonvmissioner.

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

[153]*153OPINION.

Phillips:

Upon the hearing counsel for the parties submitted in evidence the Bureau letter setting out the basis for the computation of the deficiency. The petitioner proved the sales price, the numbers of the certificates delivered, and the original cost of 300 shares evidenced by the certificates of stock which were delivered upon the sale and rested. The Commissioner then called to the stand the two witnesses who had testified on behalf of the petitioner and also counsel for the petitioner. Their testimony was to the effect that they did not know whether or not any rights to subscribe for stock had been issued in 1920 by the First National Bank of Boston to its stockholders, or whether petitioner had acquired any stock in 1920 by reason of the exercise of any such rights. Upon this record the deficiency determined by the Commissioner must be approved.

The original cost of stock is not necessarily the basis for determining profit and loss. This cost may be increased by the payment of assessments or decreased by liquidating dividends, stock dividends, or the exercise of rights to subscribe to stock, which rights the Supreme Court, in Miles v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 259 U. S. 247; 42 Sup. Ct. 483; 3 Am. Fed. Tax Rep. 3168, held to be essentially analagous to a stock dividend.

There was no dispute between the Commissioner and the petitioner as to the originál cost of the stock acquired before 1920 or as to the selling price of the stock sold. The sole issue was whether the original cost was decreased by the exercise of stock rights in 1920. The Commissioner having found that there was such an exercise of stock rights and the petitioner having failed to submit any evidence upon the sole question in dispute, the petitioner has failed to establish a cost basis other than that determined by the Commissioner.

Decision will be entered for the Oonvmissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 B.T.A. 152, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayer-v-commissioner-bta-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack