Monitor Amusement Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Verification of petition in an appeal proceeding is not a matter of jurisdiction and where the petition is signed by petitioner's attorney of record and verified by an officer of another corporation which owns all the capital stock of petitioner and where the respondent has filed his answer, a motion by the petitioner at the hearing to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, will be denied. 2. Determination by respondent of deficiencies is presumed to be correct and…
Read the full summary
1. Verification of petition in an appeal proceeding is not a matter of jurisdiction and where the petition is signed by petitioner's attorney of record and verified by an officer of another corporation which owns all the capital stock of petitioner and where the respondent has filed his answer, a motion by the petitioner at the hearing to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, will be denied. 2. Determination by respondent of deficiencies is presumed to be correct and where petitioner offers no evidence to show such determination to be incorrect, the determination of respondent will be…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Black:
Respondent determined deficiencies against petitioner as follows:
1918_•_$22,109. 76
1919_ 28, 032. 38
Total_ 50,142.13
From this determination petitioner has appealed and alleges errors as follows:
1. Failure of the Commissioner to grant affiliation of this petitioner and other corporations.
2. Failure of the Commissioner to employ proper comparatives in computing the tax under section 328, Revenue Act of 1918.
Respondent in his answer entered denials to these allegations as follows:
1. Denies that the Commissioner erred in refusing to grant affiliation of the taxpayer with other…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Schwartz v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Kausal v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Monitor Amusement Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931