Upmeyer v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Upmeyer v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 971, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2026

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1931

DocketDocket No. 11641.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 B.T.A. 971 (Upmeyer 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

Upmeyer v. Commissioner, 22 B.T.A. 971, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2026 (bta 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

[972]*972OPINION.

McMahon :

The petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction from his gross income for 1922 of the amount of a loss sustained upon the sale in that year of a house located at 3224 Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wis. He contends that he purchased the property in question in 1910 with the idea of selling it later and that it consti[973]*973tuted a transaction entered into for profit within the meaning of section 214 (a) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

From a consideration of all the evidence we are convinced that petitioner’s primary purpose in obtaining the house in question was to use it as a residence. The fact that he bought it because he thought it was a bargain which he would be able to later sell at a profit does not affect the character of the transaction. Frequently in the purchases of residences the possibilities of resales are anticipated and, with that in view, the purchaser buys at as low a price as possible. We must hold that the transaction was not entered into for profit. See John J. Madden, 2 B. T. A. 702; and Richard Loper Austin, 17 B. T. A. 801. The respondent’s determination is approved.

Judg'inent will be entered for the respondent.

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

[972]*972OPINION.

McMahon :

The petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction from his gross income for 1922 of the amount of a loss sustained upon the sale in that year of a house located at 3224 Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wis. He contends that he purchased the property in question in 1910 with the idea of selling it later and that it consti[973]*973tuted a transaction entered into for profit within the meaning of section 214 (a) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

From a consideration of all the evidence we are convinced that petitioner’s primary purpose in obtaining the house in question was to use it as a residence. The fact that he bought it because he thought it was a bargain which he would be able to later sell at a profit does not affect the character of the transaction. Frequently in the purchases of residences the possibilities of resales are anticipated and, with that in view, the purchaser buys at as low a price as possible. We must hold that the transaction was not entered into for profit. See John J. Madden, 2 B. T. A. 702; and Richard Loper Austin, 17 B. T. A. 801. The respondent’s determination is approved.

Judg'inent will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 B.T.A. 971, 1931 BTA LEXIS 2026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upmeyer-v-commissioner-bta-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack