Dunn v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Dunn v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 257, 1924 BTA LEXIS 197

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1924

DocketDocket No. 312.

StatusPublished

This text of 1 B.T.A. 257 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 257, 1924 BTA LEXIS 197 (bta 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

[259]*259OPINION.

Sternhagen :

This appeal must fall for lack of evidence. While in some cases it may be true that accounts receivable are not collectible to the full extent of their face value, this is a question of fact as to which the finding must properly be. based upon evidence. Here the taxpayers have not proven the actual value of any of the 300 accounts in question but have contented themselves with a general statement that 10 per cent is believed to be a fair discount. This is a conclusion and standing alone is insufficient.

As to the inventory which the taxpayers allege was worth less than the book value, we are likewise without evidence. The witness merely said that some of the stock on hand was slow and some was quick. He could not remember whether at the close of 1919 values of stock in trade in the grocery business were going up or down. He had himself priced the inventory, placed it upon the books, and in the absence of convincing evidence we can not now say that he was then in error; and in the absence of proof as to its actual value we can not say that the book value was too high.

Upon the record we must approve the action of the Commissioner.

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

[259]*259OPINION.

Sternhagen :

This appeal must fall for lack of evidence. While in some cases it may be true that accounts receivable are not collectible to the full extent of their face value, this is a question of fact as to which the finding must properly be. based upon evidence. Here the taxpayers have not proven the actual value of any of the 300 accounts in question but have contented themselves with a general statement that 10 per cent is believed to be a fair discount. This is a conclusion and standing alone is insufficient.

As to the inventory which the taxpayers allege was worth less than the book value, we are likewise without evidence. The witness merely said that some of the stock on hand was slow and some was quick. He could not remember whether at the close of 1919 values of stock in trade in the grocery business were going up or down. He had himself priced the inventory, placed it upon the books, and in the absence of convincing evidence we can not now say that he was then in error; and in the absence of proof as to its actual value we can not say that the book value was too high.

Upon the record we must approve the action of the Commissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 B.T.A. 257, 1924 BTA LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-commissioner-bta-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack