Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Commissioner

20 B.T.A. 796, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2034

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 1930

DocketDocket No. 46178.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 B.T.A. 796 (Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods 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

Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 796, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2034 (bta 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

[799]*799OPINION.

Lansdon:

The only error pleaded here is that the Commissioner improperly disallowed, in part, a payment in the amount of $4,300 which the petitioner made to the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in the taxable year. The theory of the respondent is that the amount disallowed was a contribution for propaganda for the purpose of increasing the population of Kansas City, and does not come within the category of ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Our findings of fact disclose that the amount disallowed was not a contribution, but a payment to the Chamber of Commerce in the nature of subscriptions for memberships and annual dues. The evidence is persuasive and convincing that such memberships and the subscriptions and dues paid on account thereof were intended to and did materially increase the volume of the petitioner’s business. The facts here are very similar to those in Hirsch-Weis Manufacturing Co., 14 B. T. A. 796. We think our decision in that proceeding controls the issue here involved. See, also, Poinsett Mills, 1 B. T. A. 6; Thomas Shoe Co., 1 B. T. A. 124; Anniston City Land Co., 2 B. T. A. 526; Simons Brick Co., 14 B. T. A. 878.

Reviewed by the Board.

Decision will be entered for the petitioner.

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

[799]*799OPINION.

Lansdon:

The only error pleaded here is that the Commissioner improperly disallowed, in part, a payment in the amount of $4,300 which the petitioner made to the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in the taxable year. The theory of the respondent is that the amount disallowed was a contribution for propaganda for the purpose of increasing the population of Kansas City, and does not come within the category of ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Our findings of fact disclose that the amount disallowed was not a contribution, but a payment to the Chamber of Commerce in the nature of subscriptions for memberships and annual dues. The evidence is persuasive and convincing that such memberships and the subscriptions and dues paid on account thereof were intended to and did materially increase the volume of the petitioner’s business. The facts here are very similar to those in Hirsch-Weis Manufacturing Co., 14 B. T. A. 796. We think our decision in that proceeding controls the issue here involved. See, also, Poinsett Mills, 1 B. T. A. 6; Thomas Shoe Co., 1 B. T. A. 124; Anniston City Land Co., 2 B. T. A. 526; Simons Brick Co., 14 B. T. A. 878.

Reviewed by the Board.

Decision will be entered for the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 B.T.A. 796, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emery-bird-thayer-dry-goods-co-v-commissioner-bta-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack