Dilks v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Dilks v. Commissioner

19 B.T.A. 646, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2354

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedApril 22, 1930

DocketDocket No. 27997.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 B.T.A. 646 (Dilks 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

Dilks v. Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 646, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2354 (bta 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

[650]*650OPINION.

Lansdon:

The petitioner contends that the amount of $44,743.53, which he received in 1922, and which the respondent proposes to include in his gross income for that year, was constructively received in 1920. This contention is based on the fact that petitioner was in charge of the construction and funds of the George A. Fuller Co., that profits on construction under the contract could be and were estimated monthly, and that at any time he could have paid himself the amounts due him under the contract. We think our decision in Lorenzo G. Dilks, 15 B. T. A. 1294, in which we held that petitioner’s compensation under the contract could not be determined in 1920, disposes of this claim. The petitioner reported his income on the cash receipts and disbursements basis. There is no convincing evidence that the amount of $44,743.53 was at his command or available for his use prior to the date of its receipt in the taxable year. On this issue the determination of the respondent is approved.

At the hearing counsel for petitioner abandoned his second allegation of error.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

[650]*650OPINION.

Lansdon:

The petitioner contends that the amount of $44,743.53, which he received in 1922, and which the respondent proposes to include in his gross income for that year, was constructively received in 1920. This contention is based on the fact that petitioner was in charge of the construction and funds of the George A. Fuller Co., that profits on construction under the contract could be and were estimated monthly, and that at any time he could have paid himself the amounts due him under the contract. We think our decision in Lorenzo G. Dilks, 15 B. T. A. 1294, in which we held that petitioner’s compensation under the contract could not be determined in 1920, disposes of this claim. The petitioner reported his income on the cash receipts and disbursements basis. There is no convincing evidence that the amount of $44,743.53 was at his command or available for his use prior to the date of its receipt in the taxable year. On this issue the determination of the respondent is approved.

At the hearing counsel for petitioner abandoned his second allegation of error.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 B.T.A. 646, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dilks-v-commissioner-bta-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack