R. H. Cunningham & Sons Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

R. H. Cunningham & Sons Co. v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 113

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJanuary 23, 1928

DocketDocket No. 7099

StatusPublished

This text of 10 B.T.A. 113 (R. H. Cunningham & Sons 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

R. H. Cunningham & Sons Co. v. Commissioner, 10 B.T.A. 113 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[116]*116OPINION.

Tkitssell :

The demand promissory notes actually and bona fide paid in for petitioner’s additional stock issue constitute invested capital of petitioner under section 326 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918, at the time paid in and during the time such notes were held by petitioner, to the extent of their actual cash value. Hewitt Rubier Co., 1 B. T. A. 424; American Steel Co., 1 B. T. A. 839; Gross Mountain Coal Co., 2 B. T. A. 587; Kaufman Co. v. Bowers, 11 Fed. (2d) 662.

The evidence establishes that each of the makers of the notes in question was entirely solvent and fully able at all times to pay the amount of his respective note upon demand and that each of the notes was fully paid in cash. The four notes were' actually and bona fide paid in for stock, the actual cash value thereof was equal to their face value, namely $60,000, and in computing petitioner’s invested capital, the said.notes should be included therein at their, face value.

Judgment will be entered on 15 days’ notice, pursuant to Rule 50.

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

[116]*116OPINION.

Tkitssell :

The demand promissory notes actually and bona fide paid in for petitioner’s additional stock issue constitute invested capital of petitioner under section 326 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918, at the time paid in and during the time such notes were held by petitioner, to the extent of their actual cash value. Hewitt Rubier Co., 1 B. T. A. 424; American Steel Co., 1 B. T. A. 839; Gross Mountain Coal Co., 2 B. T. A. 587; Kaufman Co. v. Bowers, 11 Fed. (2d) 662.

The evidence establishes that each of the makers of the notes in question was entirely solvent and fully able at all times to pay the amount of his respective note upon demand and that each of the notes was fully paid in cash. The four notes were' actually and bona fide paid in for stock, the actual cash value thereof was equal to their face value, namely $60,000, and in computing petitioner’s invested capital, the said.notes should be included therein at their, face value.

Judgment will be entered on 15 days’ notice, pursuant to Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 B.T.A. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-h-cunningham-sons-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.