Blue Ridge Overalls Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Blue Ridge Overalls Co. v. Commissioner

6 B.T.A. 1335, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3275

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1927

DocketDocket No. 10210.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 B.T.A. 1335 (Blue Ridge Overalls Co. 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

Blue Ridge Overalls Co. v. Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 1335, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3275 (bta 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[1337]*1337OPINION.

Littleton:

Petitioner introduced the testimony of two witnesses in support of its claim that the property in question had a fair market value on March 1, 1913, of $35,000. The first witness had been actively engaged in the real estate business in Roanoke for forty years. He was thoroughly familiar with real estate market conditions during the period of his experience. He was, also, thoroughly familiar with the property owned by the petitioner, the value of which is here in controversy, as well as other business properties located in Roanoke. He gave it as his opinion that the fair market value of the property in question on March 1, 1913, was between $37,000 and $38,000. The other witness had been actively engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate and in building construction since 1897. He was thoroughly familiar with petitioner’s property and the market value of real estate in Roanoke on March 1, 1913. He gave it as his opinion that the fair market value of the property in question on March 1, 1913, was between $36,000 and $37,500.

Upon the consideration of the testimony of these witnesses and the reasons given by them in support of their opinions of the values, the Board is of the opinion that the fair market value of petitioner’s property on March 1, 1913, was $35,000 as claimed by the petitioner.

Judgment 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

[1337]*1337OPINION.

Littleton:

Petitioner introduced the testimony of two witnesses in support of its claim that the property in question had a fair market value on March 1, 1913, of $35,000. The first witness had been actively engaged in the real estate business in Roanoke for forty years. He was thoroughly familiar with real estate market conditions during the period of his experience. He was, also, thoroughly familiar with the property owned by the petitioner, the value of which is here in controversy, as well as other business properties located in Roanoke. He gave it as his opinion that the fair market value of the property in question on March 1, 1913, was between $37,000 and $38,000. The other witness had been actively engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate and in building construction since 1897. He was thoroughly familiar with petitioner’s property and the market value of real estate in Roanoke on March 1, 1913. He gave it as his opinion that the fair market value of the property in question on March 1, 1913, was between $36,000 and $37,500.

Upon the consideration of the testimony of these witnesses and the reasons given by them in support of their opinions of the values, the Board is of the opinion that the fair market value of petitioner’s property on March 1, 1913, was $35,000 as claimed by the petitioner.

Judgment will be entered on 15 days' notice, under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 B.T.A. 1335, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-ridge-overalls-co-v-commissioner-bta-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack