McLoon v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

McLoon v. Commissioner

11 B.T.A. 816

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 1928

DocketDocket No. 10558

StatusPublished

This text of 11 B.T.A. 816 (McLoon 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

McLoon v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 816 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

Love :

Petitioner failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the Commissioner committed error. On the question of the amount drawn by McLoon there is only testimony by him that he used the money in another business in which he was interested, and intended to repay it to petitioner with dividends from that business. The books were not produced and we have no evidence of what they show or of what petitioner’s actions were at any time with respect to dividends.

[818]*818It was petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner used the depreciated cost instead^ of the original cost as the basis upon which to compute depreciation. The only testimony offered related to rates of depreciation that should be allowed on the several kinds of property owned by the petitioner, as to which there was no substantial controversy, and there is nothing in evidence to show the correct capital figures to which those rates should be applied.

Judgment will he entered for live respondent.

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

OPINION.

Love :

Petitioner failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the Commissioner committed error. On the question of the amount drawn by McLoon there is only testimony by him that he used the money in another business in which he was interested, and intended to repay it to petitioner with dividends from that business. The books were not produced and we have no evidence of what they show or of what petitioner’s actions were at any time with respect to dividends.

[818]*818It was petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner used the depreciated cost instead^ of the original cost as the basis upon which to compute depreciation. The only testimony offered related to rates of depreciation that should be allowed on the several kinds of property owned by the petitioner, as to which there was no substantial controversy, and there is nothing in evidence to show the correct capital figures to which those rates should be applied.

Judgment will he entered for live respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 B.T.A. 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcloon-v-commissioner-bta-1928.