Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The Board has jurisdiction of an appeal by the taxpayer from the determination of a deficiency, the sole object of which appeal is to secure a determination by the Board that the deficiency should be increased. 2. Evidence in the record reviewed and held to be insufficient to enable the Board to determine whether the treatment accorded by the Commissioner to certain payments made by the taxpayer was correct or incorrect.
Read the full summary
1. The Board has jurisdiction of an appeal by the taxpayer from the determination of a deficiency, the sole object of which appeal is to secure a determination by the Board that the deficiency should be increased. 2. Evidence in the record reviewed and held to be insufficient to enable the Board to determine whether the treatment accorded by the Commissioner to certain payments made by the taxpayer was correct or incorrect. In the circumstances, the determination made by the Commissioner must be approved.
1Opinion of the Court
*285OPINION.
Phillips:
The facts which are relied upon by the taxpayer to establish jurisdiction in the Board are set out in the findings. As to 1919, it appears that on the original return taxpayer computed a tax liability of $130,199.57, while the Commissioner determined the liability to be $82,979.50, resulting in an overassessment of $47,220.07. It is clear that under section 274 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1926 the Board has no jurisdiction of the appeal so far as it relates to 1919. Appeal of Cornelius Cotton Mills, 4 B. T. A. 255.
The chief assignment of error made by the taxpayer is the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Meisel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926