Bullick v. Commissioner

1964 T.C. Memo. 320, 23 T.C.M. 1981, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1964
DocketDocket No. 514-63.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1964 T.C. Memo. 320 (Bullick v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bullick v. Commissioner, 1964 T.C. Memo. 320, 23 T.C.M. 1981, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20 (tax 1964).

Opinion

Robert W. Bullick v. Commissioner.
Bullick v. Commissioner
Docket No. 514-63.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1964-320; 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20; 23 T.C.M. (CCH) 1981; T.C.M. (RIA) 64320;
December 15, 1964
Robert W. Bullick, pro se, 812 Cathedral Rd., Philadelphia, Pa. George K. Dunham, for the respondent.

KERN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

This proceeding involves a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the*21 year 1956 in the amount of $284.24. The sole question in issue is whether petitioner is entitled to an operating loss carryback from the year 1959 in the amount of $836.15 to the year 1956 under the terms of section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Findings of Fact

A partial stipulation of facts has been filed by the parties. We find the facts to be as stipulated and incorporate such stipulation herein by this reference.

Petitioner is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and filed his return for the year in question with the district director of internal revenue at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

During the year 1959 petitioner reported $1,280 income from teaching at St. Thomas More High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He also reported a loss of $836.15 arising from the operation of a restaurant and bar known as the Manna Bar & Lounge at 23 East Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania. By reason of offsetting this loss against the income from teaching petitioner's return for that year disclosed an adjusted gross income of $443.85.

In schedule C, attached to his return for the year 1959, petitioner reported total receipts from his restaurant*22 and bar business in the amount of $25,408.21, cost of goods sold in the amount of $9,800.55, and gross profit in the amount of $15,607.66. From this latter amount he subtracted the following "Other Business Deductions":

Salaries and wages$4,376.65
Rent on business property4,200.00
Interest on business indebtedness620.61
Taxes on business and business prop-
erty772.89
Depreciation3,403.20
Repairs104.65
Other business expenses2,365.81
Subtracting the total of such "Other Business Deductions" resulted in a reported net loss of $836.15.

In his return for the year 1959 petitioner also claimed itemized deductions as follows:

Contributions$150.00
Interest72.37
Texas161.20
Medical and dental expenses277.35
Other deductions161.80

The taxes deducted above included items of $2 for "Drivers Licenses," $10 for "Auto Tags," $4 for "Auto Inspection," and $36 for "Gasoline Tax." The "Other Deductions" are explained in the return as follows: "Other Auto Expenses (Used For Business & Pleasure) 323.60 X 50% = 161.80."

On October 4, 1960, petitioner applied for a tentative carryback allowance from the year 1959 of a loss in the amount*23 of $836.15 to the year 1956, with a consequent decrease in tax for the year 1956 in the sum of $284.24. On the basis of this application, petitioner received a refund of $284.24.

Respondent determined that under section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 no net operating loss deduction was allowable to petitioner for 1956 and therefore determined a deficiency in the amount of the above-mentioned refund, $284.24.

Opinion

KERN, Judge: The sole question before us is whether respondent erred in his determination set forth in the statement attached to his deficiency letter "that under Section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 no net operating loss deduction is allowable for the year 1956." Obviously the burden of proving that respondent erred is on the petitioner.

Respondent contends that the two items of income reported in petitioner's return for 1959, his salary as a teacher and the gross profit from his restaurant and bar, both constituted business income within the meaning of section 172, 1 and correctly cites as authority for this proposition Godfrey M. Weinstein, 29 T.C. 142, and Anders I. LaGreide, 23 T.C. 508.*24 See also Elmer E. Batzell, 30 T.C. 648, affd.

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

Related

E. A. Roberts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
258 F.2d 634 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Acer Realty Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
132 F.2d 512 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
Lagreide v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 508 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
Weinstein v. Commissioner
29 T.C. 142 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Batzell v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 648 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Acer Realty Co. v. Commissioner
45 B.T.A. 333 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)
Houghton v. Ledbetter
37 Tex. 161 (Texas Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1964 T.C. Memo. 320, 23 T.C.M. 1981, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullick-v-commissioner-tax-1964.