Dine v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Dine v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 166, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2018

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided November 25, 1925·No. Docket No. 3783.·Published

Opinion

[169] DECISION.

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

[169] DECISION.

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.

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

Pincite

3 B.T.A. 166 (Dine v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related