Pratt v. Commissioner
This text of 23 B.T.A. 148 (Pratt 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
[149]*149OPINION.
No question is raised as to the loss sustained by the petitioner as a guarantor of the coal company, for it is admitted that that corporation was insolvent at the time the note was given. The only question, therefore, is whether this loss was as to the petitioner in 1925 actual or merely potential, considering petitioner’s cash basis of accounting, and the delivery in the peculiar circumstances stated of a demand note admittedly not paid until 1927.
[150]*150The present case is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Eckert v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 140, affirming the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 42 Fed. (2d) 158, and this Board, 17 B. T. A. 263, in which the court held under .similar facts that the amount of the note could not be deducted until it was paid.
Judgment will he 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
23 B.T.A. 148, 1931 BTA LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-commissioner-bta-1931.