Barry v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 1095, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2183
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedOctober 28, 1925
DocketDocket No. 1724.
StatusPublished

This text of 2 B.T.A. 1095 (Barry 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
Barry v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 1095, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2183 (bta 1925).

Opinion

[1098]*1098OPINION.

Graupner:

The taxpayer has established to our satisfaction advances made to the Lenox Producing Corporation and expenditures made on its behalf in the amount of $4,733.79, as set forth in the findings above, which he is entitled to deduct for the year 1921 in which the corporation ceased operations without assets.

The corporation having ceased all activity in 1921 and having no assets, we conclude that the taxpayer should properly be allowed his claimed deduction of $1,000 paid for capital stock of the corporation. Appeal of Milton H. Bickley, 1 B. T. A. 544.

Of the claimed loss on account of bad debts, we are of the opinion that the taxpayer is entitled to deduct the balance of the loans to J. W. Hum and Lem Tong amounting to $105. The evidence in regard to the loan to Jane Grogan is to the effect that she did not leave Los Angeles until after 1921 and we are not satisfied that the taxpayer definitely ascertained the debt to be uncollectible in 1921.

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

Related

Appeal of Barry
2 B.T.A. 1095 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 B.T.A. 1095, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-commissioner-bta-1925.