Union Savings Bank v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Union Savings Bank v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 1175

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided March 6, 1928·No. Docket No. 10135·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[1176] OPINION.

Trammell:

The petitioner claims a deduction of $2,800 because this amount was charged off its books during the taxable year in order to make its savings account balance. There is no allegation or evidence that any loss was actually sustained by the petitioner during the taxable year. If the books were out of balance it might have been due entirely to the fact that they were improperly kept, but mere bookkeeping entries in and of themselves do not establish a loss.

Judgment will he entered for the resfondent.

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

[1176] OPINION.

Trammell:

The petitioner claims a deduction of $2,800 because this amount was charged off its books during the taxable year in order to make its savings account balance. There is no allegation or evidence that any loss was actually sustained by the petitioner during the taxable year. If the books were out of balance it might have been due entirely to the fact that they were improperly kept, but mere bookkeeping entries in and of themselves do not establish a loss.

Judgment will he entered for the resfondent.

Union Savings Bank v. Commissioner, 10 B.T.A. 1175 (bta 1928).

Pincite

10 B.T.A. 1175 (Union Savings Bank v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related