Meadows & Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Meadows & Co. v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 241, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2930

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1926

DocketDocket No. 114.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 B.T.A. 241 (Meadows & Co. 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

Meadows & Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 241, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2930 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[242]*242OPINION.

GReen:

The petitioner claims that its invested capital, for the years in question, of $38,900 should be increased by an amount equal to the subscription to its stock by the stockholders of- the Taylor-Hanna-James Co., and relies on the decision in Appeal of Hewitt Rubber Co., 1 B. T. A. 424, in support of its contention. The facts in the Appeal of Hewitt Rubber Co. were that Hewitt actually delivered his note on April 1, 1918, in the sum of $1,000,000 for $1,000,000 par value of the stock of the company; that on April 1, 1918, the certificate for $1,000,000-'par value of stock was issued to Hewitt and registered with the corporation’s transfer agent. Hewitt regularly paid interest to the corporation on the note given for the stock, received dividends, and actually paid the note for $1,000,000 during the year 1918.

[243]*243The facts in this appeal are quite different. No stock was actually issued or delivered until full payment had been made therefor; no notes were received from the stockholders.

We have had occasion to consider a question similar to the one here in issue in Appeal of Central Consumers Wine & Liquor Co., 1 B. T. A. 1190, and we see no reason to depart from the decision rendered in that appeal. See also Appeal of Forge Coal Mining Co., 2 B. T. A. 975.

Judgment will be entered for the Commissioner.

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

[242]*242OPINION.

GReen:

The petitioner claims that its invested capital, for the years in question, of $38,900 should be increased by an amount equal to the subscription to its stock by the stockholders of- the Taylor-Hanna-James Co., and relies on the decision in Appeal of Hewitt Rubber Co., 1 B. T. A. 424, in support of its contention. The facts in the Appeal of Hewitt Rubber Co. were that Hewitt actually delivered his note on April 1, 1918, in the sum of $1,000,000 for $1,000,000 par value of the stock of the company; that on April 1, 1918, the certificate for $1,000,000-'par value of stock was issued to Hewitt and registered with the corporation’s transfer agent. Hewitt regularly paid interest to the corporation on the note given for the stock, received dividends, and actually paid the note for $1,000,000 during the year 1918.

[243]*243The facts in this appeal are quite different. No stock was actually issued or delivered until full payment had been made therefor; no notes were received from the stockholders.

We have had occasion to consider a question similar to the one here in issue in Appeal of Central Consumers Wine & Liquor Co., 1 B. T. A. 1190, and we see no reason to depart from the decision rendered in that appeal. See also Appeal of Forge Coal Mining Co., 2 B. T. A. 975.

Judgment will be entered for the Commissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 241, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadows-co-v-commissioner-bta-1926.