Radel Leather Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Radel Leather Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 1118, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2654

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1925

DocketDocket No. 1396.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 B.T.A. 1118 (Radel Leather Mfg. 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

Radel Leather Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 1118, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2654 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

Phillips :

The taxpayer alleges error on the part of the Commissioner in refusing to allow a deduction upon its 1920 income and profits tax return of $4,500, claimed to have been sustained by reason of the collapse of a new building. An officer of the company testified that the cause of the collapse was unknown, that the company could find no basis upon which to hold the contractors liable, and that the building was reconstructed upon exactly the same specifications at a cost of $4,500. He could suggest no reason why, if the contractors were not liable, they had not been paid in full; nor could he explain why, if the collapse was not due to faulty construction by the contractors, the building should have been reconstructed upon exactly the same specifications. He further testified that no effort was made to hold the contractors liable or to withhold payment of the balance due them at the time of the collapse.

He also testified that the contractors were financially sound and that at the time of the collapse the building had been completed and was in use, but a letter from the taxpayer to the Commissioner, introduced into evidence during the course of his examination, stated that the taxpayer had been required to stand the loss from the col[1119]*1119lapse of the building because the contractors were financially irresponsible, and further stated that at the time of the collapse the building was not completed.

The petition, verified by the same officer who testified, states that the sum of $6,424 was paid to the contractors on completion of their work and that subsequently the building collapsed, but on the stand he testified that substantial amounts were paid to the contractors after the collapse.

We are not satisfied from the record that the taxpayer sustained any loss, and the determination of the Commissioner is approved.

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

OPINION.

Phillips :

The taxpayer alleges error on the part of the Commissioner in refusing to allow a deduction upon its 1920 income and profits tax return of $4,500, claimed to have been sustained by reason of the collapse of a new building. An officer of the company testified that the cause of the collapse was unknown, that the company could find no basis upon which to hold the contractors liable, and that the building was reconstructed upon exactly the same specifications at a cost of $4,500. He could suggest no reason why, if the contractors were not liable, they had not been paid in full; nor could he explain why, if the collapse was not due to faulty construction by the contractors, the building should have been reconstructed upon exactly the same specifications. He further testified that no effort was made to hold the contractors liable or to withhold payment of the balance due them at the time of the collapse.

He also testified that the contractors were financially sound and that at the time of the collapse the building had been completed and was in use, but a letter from the taxpayer to the Commissioner, introduced into evidence during the course of his examination, stated that the taxpayer had been required to stand the loss from the col[1119]*1119lapse of the building because the contractors were financially irresponsible, and further stated that at the time of the collapse the building was not completed.

The petition, verified by the same officer who testified, states that the sum of $6,424 was paid to the contractors on completion of their work and that subsequently the building collapsed, but on the stand he testified that substantial amounts were paid to the contractors after the collapse.

We are not satisfied from the record that the taxpayer sustained any loss, and the determination of the Commissioner is approved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 B.T.A. 1118, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radel-leather-mfg-co-v-commissioner-bta-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack