Loring v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Loring v. Commissioner

15 B.T.A. 50, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2932

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1929

DocketDocket No. 12069.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 B.T.A. 50 (Loring 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

Loring v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 50, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2932 (bta 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[51]*51OPINION.

Tettssell:

For the past twenty years petitioner has been engaged in the real estate business in Yuma and is thoroughly familiar with land values in and around that town since about 1900. The other witnesses who testified had knowledge of the growth of Yuma, and the values of the lands in question on March 1, 1913. The uncontra-dicted testimony of the witnesses establishes that petitioner’s 130 acres of land were directly in the path of the growth of the town; that on March 1,1913, there were dwellings directly across the street; that on said latter date the land had a value for purposes of subdivision over and above its value for farm lands; and that petitioner’s land had a fair market value of at least $75 per acre on March 1,1913.

JSTo question has been raised as to the value of the improvements on the land nor as to the rate of depreciation used by respondent in his computation.

* The deficiency should be recomputed upon the basis of the March 1,1913, value as found hereinabove.

Judgment will he entered pursuant to Rule 50.

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

[51]*51OPINION.

Tettssell:

For the past twenty years petitioner has been engaged in the real estate business in Yuma and is thoroughly familiar with land values in and around that town since about 1900. The other witnesses who testified had knowledge of the growth of Yuma, and the values of the lands in question on March 1, 1913. The uncontra-dicted testimony of the witnesses establishes that petitioner’s 130 acres of land were directly in the path of the growth of the town; that on March 1,1913, there were dwellings directly across the street; that on said latter date the land had a value for purposes of subdivision over and above its value for farm lands; and that petitioner’s land had a fair market value of at least $75 per acre on March 1,1913.

JSTo question has been raised as to the value of the improvements on the land nor as to the rate of depreciation used by respondent in his computation.

* The deficiency should be recomputed upon the basis of the March 1,1913, value as found hereinabove.

Judgment will he entered pursuant to Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 B.T.A. 50, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loring-v-commissioner-bta-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack