Adams v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The Commissioner erred in including in the petitioner's gross income for the calendar year 1924 the amount of a dividend, which dividend was declared on December 26, 1924, by a resolution which stated "Checks for same to be mailed December 31, 1924," where the petitioner, who kept his books and reported his income for each calendar year on the basis of cash received and disbursed, received a check for his dividend in due course on January 2, 1925.
1Opinion of the Court
*244OPINION.
Murdock :
The resolution declaring this dividend expressly provided that checks should be mailed on December 31, 1924. This language was purposely inserted. There was no other time of payment fixed and no other method of payment authorized. Thus this case differs from the case of Commissioner v. Bingham, 35 Fed. (2d) 503, for here there can be no question about the fact that the dividend was not unqualifiedly subject to the demand of the taxpayer in the earlier year.
Furthermore, the Revenue Act of 1924, which controls here, contains no such language as was used in 201(e) of the 1921…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Tar Products Corporation v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Weathers v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Gambling v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Millsaps v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
- Peck v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.