Southwark Realty Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Southwark Realty Co. v. Commissioner

15 B.T.A. 222, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2892

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1929

DocketDocket No. 17654.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 B.T.A. 222 (Southwark Realty 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

Southwark Realty Co. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 222, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2892 (bta 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[223]*223OPINION.

StfRNhagen:

The corporation seeks to include the $25,000 in the cost of the building to be used as the basis for determining gain on its sale. It is only necessary to say that the evidence does not establish that such sum was in fact paid or incurred as an obligation of the petitioner. Petitioner sought to show that such an agreement would have been reasonable. Perhaps so, but as the sole stockholder Webber might as reasonably have omitted it, and, so far as the evidence shows, he did omit it. A voluntary payment to the widow after the sale does not establish cost, even though ratified in 1923.

While this disposes of the issue, it may. be added that from the evidence it is not clear but that Webber may have been compensated before his death out of an amount of $100,000 borrowed by petitioner on second mortgage and turned over to him. A substantial part of this amount, large enough to include the $25,000 in question, remained unaccounted for.

The respondent is sustained.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

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

[223]*223OPINION.

StfRNhagen:

The corporation seeks to include the $25,000 in the cost of the building to be used as the basis for determining gain on its sale. It is only necessary to say that the evidence does not establish that such sum was in fact paid or incurred as an obligation of the petitioner. Petitioner sought to show that such an agreement would have been reasonable. Perhaps so, but as the sole stockholder Webber might as reasonably have omitted it, and, so far as the evidence shows, he did omit it. A voluntary payment to the widow after the sale does not establish cost, even though ratified in 1923.

While this disposes of the issue, it may. be added that from the evidence it is not clear but that Webber may have been compensated before his death out of an amount of $100,000 borrowed by petitioner on second mortgage and turned over to him. A substantial part of this amount, large enough to include the $25,000 in question, remained unaccounted for.

The respondent is sustained.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 B.T.A. 222, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwark-realty-co-v-commissioner-bta-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack