Eastern Rolling Mill Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Eastern Rolling Mill Co. v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 663, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2812

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 1926

DocketDocket No. 5451.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 B.T.A. 663 (Eastern Rolling Mill Co. 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

Eastern Rolling Mill Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 663, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2812 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[664]*664opinion.

Phillips:

The principal question for consideration is whether the difference between the interest paid and the interest received by petitioner during the period it was constructing its plant may properly be treated as a capital expenditure for the purpose of computing the petitioner’s surplus for invested capital. That question has been decided adversely to the contention of the petitioner by the Board in Appeal of Columbia Theatre Co., 3 B. T. A. 622; Appeal of [665]*665Ottawa Park Realty Co., 5 B. T. A. 474; and Spring Valley Water Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B. T. A. 660.

At the hearing it was conceded by the Commissioner that the amount of $2,020.16 of interest credited to the petitioner’s account by its bankers as of December 31, 1919, was properly income for 1919 and was not income for 1920. At the same time it was conceded by the Commissioner that interest of $35,330.70, paid by petitioner upon advance installment payments of the purchase price of its capital stock were properly deductible in computing the income for 1919 and should not have been used to decrease invested capital for 1920, except as it may reduce any earned surplus.

Decision redetermining deficiency will be entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

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

[664]*664opinion.

Phillips:

The principal question for consideration is whether the difference between the interest paid and the interest received by petitioner during the period it was constructing its plant may properly be treated as a capital expenditure for the purpose of computing the petitioner’s surplus for invested capital. That question has been decided adversely to the contention of the petitioner by the Board in Appeal of Columbia Theatre Co., 3 B. T. A. 622; Appeal of [665]*665Ottawa Park Realty Co., 5 B. T. A. 474; and Spring Valley Water Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B. T. A. 660.

At the hearing it was conceded by the Commissioner that the amount of $2,020.16 of interest credited to the petitioner’s account by its bankers as of December 31, 1919, was properly income for 1919 and was not income for 1920. At the same time it was conceded by the Commissioner that interest of $35,330.70, paid by petitioner upon advance installment payments of the purchase price of its capital stock were properly deductible in computing the income for 1919 and should not have been used to decrease invested capital for 1920, except as it may reduce any earned surplus.

Decision redetermining deficiency will be entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 663, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-rolling-mill-co-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack