Elkins v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Elkins v. Commissioner

12 B.T.A. 1058, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3411

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1928

DocketDocket No. 18036.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 B.T.A. 1058 (Elkins 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

Elkins v. Commissioner, 12 B.T.A. 1058, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3411 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[1059]*1059OPINION.

Milliken :

Eesponclent added to the income of petitioner, $5,000 as commissions paid to him by the Petroleum Producers’ Syndicate. He was no doubt moved so to do because the books of account of the Syndicate reflected such a situation. Petitioner, as well as Cobb and Fair, testified that no sum was paid by 'the Syndicate to petitioner during the year as commissions. The bookkeeping transaction set forth in the findings of fact did not give rise to income or change the true facts of the case and the respondent was in error in adding the amount in question to the income of petitioner.

Counsel for respondent at the hearing of this cause attempted to show that the Syndicate had been allowed the sum here in question as a deduction in determining the distributive share to which petitioner was entitled. Such attempt was in furtherance of the alternative claim which he made that if we were of the opinion that the respondent was in error in adding the sum in question to the income of petitioner, there would, nevertheless, be a sum which should be added to income represented by an increased distributive share from the Syndicate.

We have no competent evidence as to the deductions allowed the Syndicate in the determination of the distributive share of the petitioner and that in itself precludes favorable consideration of the claim made by counsel for respondent.

Judgment will he entered wider Rule 50.

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

[1059]*1059OPINION.

Milliken :

Eesponclent added to the income of petitioner, $5,000 as commissions paid to him by the Petroleum Producers’ Syndicate. He was no doubt moved so to do because the books of account of the Syndicate reflected such a situation. Petitioner, as well as Cobb and Fair, testified that no sum was paid by 'the Syndicate to petitioner during the year as commissions. The bookkeeping transaction set forth in the findings of fact did not give rise to income or change the true facts of the case and the respondent was in error in adding the amount in question to the income of petitioner.

Counsel for respondent at the hearing of this cause attempted to show that the Syndicate had been allowed the sum here in question as a deduction in determining the distributive share to which petitioner was entitled. Such attempt was in furtherance of the alternative claim which he made that if we were of the opinion that the respondent was in error in adding the sum in question to the income of petitioner, there would, nevertheless, be a sum which should be added to income represented by an increased distributive share from the Syndicate.

We have no competent evidence as to the deductions allowed the Syndicate in the determination of the distributive share of the petitioner and that in itself precludes favorable consideration of the claim made by counsel for respondent.

Judgment will he entered wider Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 B.T.A. 1058, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elkins-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack