Baird v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Baird v. Commissioner

4 B.T.A. 399, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2284

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided July 27, 1926·No. Docket No. 9393.·Published

Opinion

[400] OPINION.

Aetjndell:

For the reasons set forth in the Appeal of Walter T. Smith, this day decided, ante, 897, we are satisfied that the value of the bonds of the Bowman Hotel Corporation, when received by the petitioner in June, 1919, was not to exceed 50 per cent of their par value. No evidence was offered as to the value of the notes of the Central Building Co. and the finding of the Commissioner is consequently approved.

Order of redetermination will be entered on 15 days' notice, under Rule 50.

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

[400] OPINION.

Aetjndell:

For the reasons set forth in the Appeal of Walter T. Smith, this day decided, ante, 897, we are satisfied that the value of the bonds of the Bowman Hotel Corporation, when received by the petitioner in June, 1919, was not to exceed 50 per cent of their par value. No evidence was offered as to the value of the notes of the Central Building Co. and the finding of the Commissioner is consequently approved.

Order of redetermination will be entered on 15 days' notice, under Rule 50.

Baird v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 399, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2284 (bta 1926).

Pincite

4 B.T.A. 399 (Baird v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related