Valve v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Valve v. Commissioner

6 B.T.A. 460

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided March 10, 1927·No. Docket No. 9089·Published

Opinion

[461] OPINION.

Smith :

The respondent was in error in reducing invested capital by a tentative tax in the manner indicated in the findings of fact. Appeal of L. S. Ayers & Co., 1 B. T. A. 1135..

The Commissioner correctly reduced earned surplus in each of the years by the prorated amount of the preceding year’s income and profits tax. Appeal of Russel Wheel & Foundry Co., 3 B. T. A. 1168.

Judgment will he entered on 15 days’ notice under Rule 50.

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

[461] OPINION.

Smith :

The respondent was in error in reducing invested capital by a tentative tax in the manner indicated in the findings of fact. Appeal of L. S. Ayers & Co., 1 B. T. A. 1135..

The Commissioner correctly reduced earned surplus in each of the years by the prorated amount of the preceding year’s income and profits tax. Appeal of Russel Wheel & Foundry Co., 3 B. T. A. 1168.

Judgment will he entered on 15 days’ notice under Rule 50.

Valve v. Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 460 (bta 1927).

Pincite

6 B.T.A. 460 (Valve v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.