First National Bank, Parkers Landing v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

First National Bank, Parkers Landing v. Commissioner

12 B.T.A. 1387

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJuly 17, 1928

DocketDocket No. 14571

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 12 B.T.A. 1387 (First National Bank, Parkers Landing 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

First National Bank, Parkers Landing v. Commissioner, 12 B.T.A. 1387 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[1388]*1388OPINION.

Sternhagen:

The facts before us indicate nothing as to actual worthlessness of the bonds or that a loss was in fact realized. The single reason for “ charging them off ” was an order of a national bank examiner. This does not prove either a loss sustained, under section 234 (a) (4) or a debt ascertained to be worthless under section 234 (a) (5), Revenue Act of 1921, Murchison National Bank, 1 B. T. A. 617; Farmers & Traders Bank, 4 B. T. A. 753; Continental Trust Co., 7 B. T. A. 539, 554. Nor are the facts sufficient to show the extent to which the debts, if they were to be treated as such under the revenue act, were recoverable only in part, so as to allow partial charge-off.

The Board has recently held in respect of certain Russian bonds that, although debts, no deduction could be taken unless the loss provision of the statute were fulfilled. First National Bank of St. Paul, 10 B. T. A. 32. Here we have only an inference of reduced market value of property still in possession and accounted for as an asset, and this inference arising not from evidence as to the bonds themselves but from an order of a national bank examiner for the purpose presumably of conservative accounting. The respondent is sustained.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

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

[1388]*1388OPINION.

Sternhagen:

The facts before us indicate nothing as to actual worthlessness of the bonds or that a loss was in fact realized. The single reason for “ charging them off ” was an order of a national bank examiner. This does not prove either a loss sustained, under section 234 (a) (4) or a debt ascertained to be worthless under section 234 (a) (5), Revenue Act of 1921, Murchison National Bank, 1 B. T. A. 617; Farmers & Traders Bank, 4 B. T. A. 753; Continental Trust Co., 7 B. T. A. 539, 554. Nor are the facts sufficient to show the extent to which the debts, if they were to be treated as such under the revenue act, were recoverable only in part, so as to allow partial charge-off.

The Board has recently held in respect of certain Russian bonds that, although debts, no deduction could be taken unless the loss provision of the statute were fulfilled. First National Bank of St. Paul, 10 B. T. A. 32. Here we have only an inference of reduced market value of property still in possession and accounted for as an asset, and this inference arising not from evidence as to the bonds themselves but from an order of a national bank examiner for the purpose presumably of conservative accounting. The respondent is sustained.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 B.T.A. 1387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-parkers-landing-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack