City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. United States

22 F. Supp. 549, 86 Ct. Cl. 544, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1174, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 7, 1938

DocketNo. 42899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 F. Supp. 549 (City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. United States, 22 F. Supp. 549, 86 Ct. Cl. 544, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1174, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225 (cc 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, as executors of the estate of William T. ■Carrington, deceased, have duly filed a claim for refund of taxes paid by the decedent for the year 1929 on the ground that in computing the taxes of the decedent for that year the Commissioner failed to allow $89,000 as a bad debt deduction by reason of which the decedent’s taxes were overpaid in the sum of $13,958.14, for which sum judgment is asked.

[549]*549Tbe commissioner of this court found that in the years 1927 and 1928 the decedent made loans aggregating $89,000 to a corporation known as the American Society for Opera in English, Inc., and that in 1929 he ascertained the debts created thereby to be worthless. Counsel for defendant argue that the evidence does not sustain the commissioner’s findings. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence as we agree with our commissioner and have affirmed his conclusions.

The defendant also contends that there is no evidence that the decedent charged off the loans on any books, and argues that as the decedent did not claim the deduction in his return it can not be allowed. The decedent kept no books of account and when his 1929 tax return was being made up he stated to his agent who was preparing the return that the loans were a total loss and that he wanted them charged off on the return. The failure to include the deduction in the return is thus fully explained. Under the circumstances, we think the plaintiffs were entitled to make a claim for refund. See Peters v. United States, 80 C. Cls. 830.

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover $13,953.14 together with interest thereon as provided by law. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

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

Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, as executors of the estate of William T. ■Carrington, deceased, have duly filed a claim for refund of taxes paid by the decedent for the year 1929 on the ground that in computing the taxes of the decedent for that year the Commissioner failed to allow $89,000 as a bad debt deduction by reason of which the decedent’s taxes were overpaid in the sum of $13,958.14, for which sum judgment is asked.

[549]*549Tbe commissioner of this court found that in the years 1927 and 1928 the decedent made loans aggregating $89,000 to a corporation known as the American Society for Opera in English, Inc., and that in 1929 he ascertained the debts created thereby to be worthless. Counsel for defendant argue that the evidence does not sustain the commissioner’s findings. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence as we agree with our commissioner and have affirmed his conclusions.

The defendant also contends that there is no evidence that the decedent charged off the loans on any books, and argues that as the decedent did not claim the deduction in his return it can not be allowed. The decedent kept no books of account and when his 1929 tax return was being made up he stated to his agent who was preparing the return that the loans were a total loss and that he wanted them charged off on the return. The failure to include the deduction in the return is thus fully explained. Under the circumstances, we think the plaintiffs were entitled to make a claim for refund. See Peters v. United States, 80 C. Cls. 830.

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover $13,953.14 together with interest thereon as provided by law. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. Supp. 549, 86 Ct. Cl. 544, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1174, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-bank-farmers-trust-co-v-united-states-cc-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack