Pine v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Pine v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 555, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2564

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided May 14, 1929·No. Docket No. 27573.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[556] OPINION.

MaRqtjette :

The facts in this proceeding speak for themselves. It is clear that the petitioner overstated his gross income on his return by the amount of $23,921.60, and that he attempted to compensate therefor by a fictitious deduction under item 16 of the return. The respondent properly disallowed the deduction, but the result is that the petitioner’s net income as determined by the respondent is excessive to the extent of $23,921.60. Both the deduction and the amount erroneously reported as income should be eliminated from the return.

Judgment will l>e entered under Rule 50.

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

[556] OPINION.

MaRqtjette :

The facts in this proceeding speak for themselves. It is clear that the petitioner overstated his gross income on his return by the amount of $23,921.60, and that he attempted to compensate therefor by a fictitious deduction under item 16 of the return. The respondent properly disallowed the deduction, but the result is that the petitioner’s net income as determined by the respondent is excessive to the extent of $23,921.60. Both the deduction and the amount erroneously reported as income should be eliminated from the return.

Judgment will l>e entered under Rule 50.

Pine v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 555, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2564 (bta 1929).

Pincite

16 B.T.A. 555 (Pine v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related