Low v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Low v. Commissioner

19 B.T.A. 980, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2287

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1930

DocketDocket No. 31806.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 B.T.A. 980 (Low 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

Low v. Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 980, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2287 (bta 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

[982]*982OPINION.

Trussell:

All of our facts are gleaned from the statements of the petitioner, who took the stand in his own behalf. There is no other evidence.

The contention of the respondent is that the advances to the acquaintance of the petitioner were purely charitable donations or gifts, for the reason that they were made under circumstances which afforded no hope of repayment. Assuming, without deciding, that this is so with reference to the later advances, it may still be pointed out that at first the transactions certainly were loans, the aggregate of which, at some time or other, would properly be designated as a debt. However, after a careful consideration of the testimony of the petitioner, we feel satisfied that the record certainly does not support a conclusion that the debt was ascertained to be bad during the taxable year, as it must have been to be allowable as a deduction. See section 214 (a) (Y) of the Revenue Act of 1921. We think our uncertainty in this regard is shared by the petitioner. His testimony indicates considerable doubt as to whether he was convinced in his own mind during the taxable year that the debt was uncollectible. We, therefore, conclude that the deduction claimed may not be allowed.

Judgment will he entered for the respondent.

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

[982]*982OPINION.

Trussell:

All of our facts are gleaned from the statements of the petitioner, who took the stand in his own behalf. There is no other evidence.

The contention of the respondent is that the advances to the acquaintance of the petitioner were purely charitable donations or gifts, for the reason that they were made under circumstances which afforded no hope of repayment. Assuming, without deciding, that this is so with reference to the later advances, it may still be pointed out that at first the transactions certainly were loans, the aggregate of which, at some time or other, would properly be designated as a debt. However, after a careful consideration of the testimony of the petitioner, we feel satisfied that the record certainly does not support a conclusion that the debt was ascertained to be bad during the taxable year, as it must have been to be allowable as a deduction. See section 214 (a) (Y) of the Revenue Act of 1921. We think our uncertainty in this regard is shared by the petitioner. His testimony indicates considerable doubt as to whether he was convinced in his own mind during the taxable year that the debt was uncollectible. We, therefore, conclude that the deduction claimed may not be allowed.

Judgment will he entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 B.T.A. 980, 1930 BTA LEXIS 2287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/low-v-commissioner-bta-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack