Tuthill v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 887, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2046
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedMarch 24, 1931
DocketDocket No. 42778.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 B.T.A. 887 (Tuthill 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
Tuthill v. Commissioner, 22 B.T.A. 887, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2046 (bta 1931).

Opinion

[888]*888OPINION.

Arundell:

The evidence discloses that E. M. Welch was the head of a group which since 1908 and through the taxable years has been engaged in the purchase, sale and operation of a number of undertaking establishments. Whenever Welch discovered what he regarded as a good purchase he would call on those interested with him to pay their proportionate part of the purchase price and the [889]*889business would be acquired. The business would then be operated until the opportunity offered to sell to advantage. Each acquisition was a separate transaction, but all were conducted under substantially the same terms and arrangements between the parties.

The first purchase made by Welch was of the Dunning undertaking business in 1908. Petitioner and his wife each contributed $1,500 of their own money in the venturo and on the sale of the business each received a proportionate share of the profits, amounting to approximately $2,000 each. The money was deposited in a joint bank account of petitioner and his wife and while the management of the fund was undoubtedly largely left to the discretion of petitioner, Mrs. Tuthill was consulted about many of the deals and was familiar with what was going on. The testimony is positive that she had an equal share in each of these ventures with her husband and the course of conduct between petitioner and his wife has been entirely consistent with that testimony.

In our opinion petitioner and his wife were joint venturers in the several Welch enterprises, and it was proper for the wife to report one-half of the income arising from their investment. L. F. Sunlin, 6 B. T. A. 1232; Charles C. Ruprecht, 16 B. T. A. 919.

Decision will he entered under Rule 50.

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

Related

United States v. Atkins
191 F.2d 951 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Rupple v. Kuhl
177 F.2d 823 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
Berkowitz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
108 F.2d 319 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Tuthill v. Commissioner
22 B.T.A. 887 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 B.T.A. 887, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuthill-v-commissioner-bta-1931.