Home/Board of Tax Appeals/Bloom v. Commissioner

Bloom v. Commissioner

20 B.T.A. 933, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2004
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedSeptember 23, 1930
DocketDocket Nos. 35159, 35160.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

Opinion

[934]*934OPINION.

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

Related

Bloom v. Commissioner
20 B.T.A. 933 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 B.T.A. 933, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-commissioner-bta-1930.