Welsch v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Welsch v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 64, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2558

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1925

DocketDocket No. 260.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 B.T.A. 64 (Welsch 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

Welsch v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 64, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2558 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a deficiency letter dated June 30, 1924, proposing to assess additional income taxes for the year 1919. The taxpayer’s books of account for the year mentioned were lost. The Commissioner has accepted the taxpayer’s statement of gross sales as shown on his return for that year, but has resorted to the percentage [65]*65method for determining the net taxable income. Taking 33 per cent of the sales as gross income and 22 per cent of the gross income as net income, a deficiency of $417.87 has resulted. From the pleadings and from depositions and documentary evidence introduced, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT.

During the year involved the taxpayer was engaged, at New York City, in the importation, renovation, and sale of feathers.

The taxpayer’s books of account for the year 1919 were lost early in 1920.

The taxpayer is unable to establish from any competent secondary evidence his true net income, and he has failed to establish that the percentages used by the Commissioner are incorrect.

DECISION.

The determination of the Commissioner is approved.

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

This is an appeal from a deficiency letter dated June 30, 1924, proposing to assess additional income taxes for the year 1919. The taxpayer’s books of account for the year mentioned were lost. The Commissioner has accepted the taxpayer’s statement of gross sales as shown on his return for that year, but has resorted to the percentage [65]*65method for determining the net taxable income. Taking 33 per cent of the sales as gross income and 22 per cent of the gross income as net income, a deficiency of $417.87 has resulted. From the pleadings and from depositions and documentary evidence introduced, the Board makes the following