Edwin J. Schoettle Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Edwin J. Schoettle Co. v. Commissioner

13 B.T.A. 950, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3125

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 12, 1928

DocketDocket No. 1941.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 B.T.A. 950 (Edwin J. Schoettle 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

Edwin J. Schoettle Co. v. Commissioner, 13 B.T.A. 950, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3125 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[952]*952OPINION.

Arundell:

To the plea of the bar of the statute of limitation respondent has interposed the defense that the bond filed by petitioner with its claim in abatement is a consent in writing within the meaning of the taxing statute. This contention was ruled upon adversely by us in the case of C. B. Shaffer, 12 B. T. A. 298, and Gulf States Steel Co., 12 B. T. A. 1244. See also United States v. John Barth Co., 27 Fed. (2d) 782.

As a further defense respondent contends that petitioner’s return does not meet the requirements of section 13(b) of the Revenue Act of 1916, which was in effect at the time the return was filed, in that the return was sworn to by petitioner’s president and secretary, wherein the statute requires that it be sworn to by the president and treasurer of the company. The evidence discloses however, that Schoettle, who executed the return as president of the company, was during the taxable year and at the' date the return was filed also petitioner’s treasurer. In view of this fact it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the legal question raised by respondent.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

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

[952]*952OPINION.

Arundell:

To the plea of the bar of the statute of limitation respondent has interposed the defense that the bond filed by petitioner with its claim in abatement is a consent in writing within the meaning of the taxing statute. This contention was ruled upon adversely by us in the case of C. B. Shaffer, 12 B. T. A. 298, and Gulf States Steel Co., 12 B. T. A. 1244. See also United States v. John Barth Co., 27 Fed. (2d) 782.

As a further defense respondent contends that petitioner’s return does not meet the requirements of section 13(b) of the Revenue Act of 1916, which was in effect at the time the return was filed, in that the return was sworn to by petitioner’s president and secretary, wherein the statute requires that it be sworn to by the president and treasurer of the company. The evidence discloses however, that Schoettle, who executed the return as president of the company, was during the taxable year and at the' date the return was filed also petitioner’s treasurer. In view of this fact it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the legal question raised by respondent.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 B.T.A. 950, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-j-schoettle-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack