Terrell Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Terrell Co. v. Commissioner

9 B.T.A. 1131

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

DocketDocket Nos. 9681, 10384, 11831

StatusPublished

This text of 9 B.T.A. 1131 (Terrell 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

Terrell Co. v. Commissioner, 9 B.T.A. 1131 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[1132]*1132OPINION.

Phillips :

This proceeding was presented upon a stipulation setting out certain agreed facts and documentary evidence in support thereof. Substantially the same question which is before us was presented to the Supreme Court in Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co., Executor, 274 U. S. 731, and decided (on November 21, 1927) adversely to the position taken by petitioner. The only fact brought to our attention [1133]*1133which might distinguish the present proceeding from the situation upon which the Supreme Court ruled is that in the present case the lands of the petitioner are expressly exempted from taxation, while the lands of the Osage Tribe of Indians are not. It was a lease from this latter tribe which the Supreme Court considered in the Colonial Trust Co. case. The members of that tribe could claim exemption from the income tax only upon the ground that the taxing statute should not be interpreted to include them. The lands of the Creek Tribe of Indians, however, are expressly exempted from taxation. Upon authority of Pollock v. Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429; Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, and other decisions, it is contended that if the source of the income is exempt, so are the income and revenues derived therefrom. The situation of the lessee in the instant proceeding, however, appears to be no different from that of the lessee in the case before the Supreme Court. We regard the opinion in that case as controlling the decision of the question raised in this proceeding.

Reviewed by the Board.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

[1132]*1132OPINION.

Phillips :

This proceeding was presented upon a stipulation setting out certain agreed facts and documentary evidence in support thereof. Substantially the same question which is before us was presented to the Supreme Court in Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co., Executor, 274 U. S. 731, and decided (on November 21, 1927) adversely to the position taken by petitioner. The only fact brought to our attention [1133]*1133which might distinguish the present proceeding from the situation upon which the Supreme Court ruled is that in the present case the lands of the petitioner are expressly exempted from taxation, while the lands of the Osage Tribe of Indians are not. It was a lease from this latter tribe which the Supreme Court considered in the Colonial Trust Co. case. The members of that tribe could claim exemption from the income tax only upon the ground that the taxing statute should not be interpreted to include them. The lands of the Creek Tribe of Indians, however, are expressly exempted from taxation. Upon authority of Pollock v. Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429; Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, and other decisions, it is contended that if the source of the income is exempt, so are the income and revenues derived therefrom. The situation of the lessee in the instant proceeding, however, appears to be no different from that of the lessee in the case before the Supreme Court. We regard the opinion in that case as controlling the decision of the question raised in this proceeding.

Reviewed by the Board.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 B.T.A. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrell-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack