Fitzgerald v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Fitzgerald v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 178, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2934

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1926

DocketDocket No. 810.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 B.T.A. 178 (Fitzgerald 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

Fitzgerald v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 178, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2934 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[180]*180OPINION.

Marquette :

We have heretofore held that a distribution by a corporate dividend out of surplus occurs when the dividend is declared and not when it is paid. Appeal of A. H. Stange, 1 B. T. A. 810; Appeal of Harmon W. Hendricks, 4 B. T. A. 1257. The dividend herein was declared December 27, 1916, and it therefore constituted a distribution of surplus or profits at that time, regardless of the fact that payment was not made until a later date; and no part of the distribution could therefore have been made from earnings for the year 1917. It follows that the Commissioner erred in taxing any part of the dividends received by the petitioner at the 1917 rates.

Order of redetermination 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

[180]*180OPINION.

Marquette :

We have heretofore held that a distribution by a corporate dividend out of surplus occurs when the dividend is declared and not when it is paid. Appeal of A. H. Stange, 1 B. T. A. 810; Appeal of Harmon W. Hendricks, 4 B. T. A. 1257. The dividend herein was declared December 27, 1916, and it therefore constituted a distribution of surplus or profits at that time, regardless of the fact that payment was not made until a later date; and no part of the distribution could therefore have been made from earnings for the year 1917. It follows that the Commissioner erred in taxing any part of the dividends received by the petitioner at the 1917 rates.

Order of redetermination will be entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 178, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack