James v. Commissioner
This text of 1 B.T.A. 548 (James 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.
Opinion
opinion.
The taxpayer, although not denying that the entire transaction was profitable, contends that the profit should be spread so that each payment received upon the notes would be treated as including a pro rata share of the income. But there is no evidence before us from -which we could infer that the property received in payment at the time of sale was not worth its face value. The cash was worth $5,000, the release from the obligation of the first mortgage was worth $5,000, and the notes were non constat worth their full face value (of. Wolf son’s Appeal, 1 B. T. A. 538) and were in due course promptly paid. We think, as in GhurcMIVs Appeal, 1 B. T. A. 168, that the gain was realized in 1920, as determined by the Commissioner.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 B.T.A. 548, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-commissioner-bta-1925.