H. Fendrich, Inc. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

H. Fendrich, Inc. v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 77, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2047

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 1925

DocketDocket No. 4254.

StatusPublished

This text of 3 B.T.A. 77 (H. Fendrich, Inc. 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

H. Fendrich, Inc. v. Commissioner, 3 B.T.A. 77, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2047 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[79]*79OPINION.

GRATJPNER:

In its petition the taxpayer contends that the sum of $5,000 was paid for the privilege of securing the lease. At the hearing it claimed that the $5,000 was paid for the purpose of expediting the manufacture of the machines by a company which was then starting in business, and to secure prompt delivery. Taxpayer also asks that we hold the agreement to be divisible.

It appears to us immaterial whether or not the agreement was divisible. The cases cited by the taxpayer involve contracts a part of which were valid and a part invalid. We are not concerned with the validity of any part of the contract executed by the taxpayer, particularly as it appears that the requirements of the contract have been fulfilled by both parties. In asking us to find that the payment of $5,000 was made for a purpose other than to secure a license to use the patented machines, the taxpayer is asking that we read into the agreement something that will vary its plainly expressed terms and to construe the meaning of the agreement in a manner radically different from the meaning which would naturally be arrived at by placing upon the terms thereof their ordinary and accepted meaning. There appears to us to be no ground for such a construction, as the instrument on its face is complete and we can find in it no ambiguity which needs an interpretation other than that to be gained by the clear import of its terms.

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

[79]*79OPINION.

GRATJPNER:

In its petition the taxpayer contends that the sum of $5,000 was paid for the privilege of securing the lease. At the hearing it claimed that the $5,000 was paid for the purpose of expediting the manufacture of the machines by a company which was then starting in business, and to secure prompt delivery. Taxpayer also asks that we hold the agreement to be divisible.

It appears to us immaterial whether or not the agreement was divisible. The cases cited by the taxpayer involve contracts a part of which were valid and a part invalid. We are not concerned with the validity of any part of the contract executed by the taxpayer, particularly as it appears that the requirements of the contract have been fulfilled by both parties. In asking us to find that the payment of $5,000 was made for a purpose other than to secure a license to use the patented machines, the taxpayer is asking that we read into the agreement something that will vary its plainly expressed terms and to construe the meaning of the agreement in a manner radically different from the meaning which would naturally be arrived at by placing upon the terms thereof their ordinary and accepted meaning. There appears to us to be no ground for such a construction, as the instrument on its face is complete and we can find in it no ambiguity which needs an interpretation other than that to be gained by the clear import of its terms.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 B.T.A. 77, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-fendrich-inc-v-commissioner-bta-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack