Levering v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Levering v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 616, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2815

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1926

DocketDocket Nos. 5657, 7906.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 B.T.A. 616 (Levering 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

Levering v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 616, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2815 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[617]*617OPINION.

Stekniiagen:

The only evidence is the testimony of one of the petitioners. He testified to all of the foregoing facts. The contention of petitioners’ counsel is that the profit from the pool had been assigned to the Securo Corporation and was not income to the members of the partnership. The contention is clearly untenable. The partnership subscribed to the pool and undertook to pay the subscription if called upon. No payment was required. In 1920 a profit of $32,580 was realized from the transaction, and like any other profit it was within the partnership’s gross income. What they did with it thereafter does not make it otherwise. So far as this record shows there was no consideration for the credit to the Securo Corporation, and the transfer of the profit after receipt to that corporation does not affect the question.

Judgment will be entered for the Gom-missioner.

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

[617]*617OPINION.

Stekniiagen:

The only evidence is the testimony of one of the petitioners. He testified to all of the foregoing facts. The contention of petitioners’ counsel is that the profit from the pool had been assigned to the Securo Corporation and was not income to the members of the partnership. The contention is clearly untenable. The partnership subscribed to the pool and undertook to pay the subscription if called upon. No payment was required. In 1920 a profit of $32,580 was realized from the transaction, and like any other profit it was within the partnership’s gross income. What they did with it thereafter does not make it otherwise. So far as this record shows there was no consideration for the credit to the Securo Corporation, and the transfer of the profit after receipt to that corporation does not affect the question.

Judgment will be entered for the Gom-missioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 616, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levering-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack