Stokes v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Stokes v. Commissioner

7 B.T.A. 375, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3194

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided June 16, 1927·No. Docket No. 251.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[377] OPINION.

Love :

There are some of the items going into the list of expenditures, the aggregate amount of which the petitioner seeks to include as cost of the property, which clearly are not capital expenditures, for example, the taxes paid, which accrued subsequent to date of purchase by Stokes and Massie.

We have no evidence by which we may segregate those expense items from the capital expenditures, if any, and hence, for the want of such evidence,

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Phillips dissents.

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

[377] OPINION.

Love :

There are some of the items going into the list of expenditures, the aggregate amount of which the petitioner seeks to include as cost of the property, which clearly are not capital expenditures, for example, the taxes paid, which accrued subsequent to date of purchase by Stokes and Massie.

We have no evidence by which we may segregate those expense items from the capital expenditures, if any, and hence, for the want of such evidence,

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Phillips dissents.

Stokes v. Commissioner, 7 B.T.A. 375, 1927 BTA LEXIS 3194 (bta 1927).

Pincite

7 B.T.A. 375 (Stokes v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related