Bloom v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Bloom v. Commissioner

20 B.T.A. 933, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2004

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided September 23, 1930·No. Docket Nos. 35159, 35160.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[934] OPINION.

Marquette :

The issues raised herein must be resolved in favor of the petitioner. The evidence establishes to our satisfaction that Benjamin Bloom was a partner in the firm of David Bloom & Co., and that the amount of $228,362.82 received by him upon the dissolution of the firm was his distributive share in the firm assets and not a gift from his uncles, Jonas Bloom and David Bloom, or either of them. It follows that the respondent erred in asserting against Jonas Bloom and David Bloom the taxes in controversy.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

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

[934] OPINION.

Marquette :

The issues raised herein must be resolved in favor of the petitioner. The evidence establishes to our satisfaction that Benjamin Bloom was a partner in the firm of David Bloom & Co., and that the amount of $228,362.82 received by him upon the dissolution of the firm was his distributive share in the firm assets and not a gift from his uncles, Jonas Bloom and David Bloom, or either of them. It follows that the respondent erred in asserting against Jonas Bloom and David Bloom the taxes in controversy.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Bloom v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 933, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2004 (bta 1930).

Pincite

20 B.T.A. 933 (Bloom v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related