Dine v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 166, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2018
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedNovember 25, 1925
DocketDocket No. 3783.
StatusPublished

This text of 3 B.T.A. 166 (Dine 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
Dine v. Commissioner, 3 B.T.A. 166, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2018 (bta 1925).

Opinion

[169]*169DECISION.

The decedent and his wife, Rebecca Dine, were tenants in common of the undivided one-half interest conveyed to them by Harry Dine. The deficiency should be computed by including as a part of the decedent’s estate an undivided one-fourth interest in the property located at 1123 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, at the value of $15,000. Sergeant v. Steinberger, 2 Ohio, 305; Wilson v. Fleming, 13 Ohio, 68; Penn v. Cox, 16 Ohio, 30; Farmers’ & Merchants' National Bank v. Wallace, 45 Ohio St. 152; Thompson on Real Property, Vol. II, p. 942, §1738. The determination is otherwi&e approved. Final determination will be made on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

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

Related

Appeal of Dine
3 B.T.A. 166 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 B.T.A. 166, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dine-v-commissioner-bta-1925.