Nusbaum v. Commissioner
This text of 10 B.T.A. 664 (Nusbaum 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.
Opinion
[665]*665OPINION.
The only question here is whether the amount paid by the petitioner to Carney was a capital expenditure or an expense in the nature of a fee for professional services. Even if the payment was a fee for services rendered, the respondent maintains that it was not an expense deductible from gross income of the petitioner for the taxable year, but a capital outlay incident to the acquisition of the lease.
Upon authority of many cases already decided by the Board, we must approve the determination of the respondent. Appeal of Crompton Building Corporation, 2 B. T. A. 1056; Appeal of D. N. & E. Walter & Co., 4 B. T. A. 142; Appeal of Lincoln L. McCandless, 5 B. T. A. 1114.
No evidence relating to the deficiency for 1921 having been presented, the determination of the respondent is approved.
Reviewed by the Board.
Judgment will Toe entered for the respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 B.T.A. 664, 1928 BTA LEXIS 4044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nusbaum-v-commissioner-bta-1928.