Briarly v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Petitioners realized taxable income in 1928 from the sale of real estate. They failed to file returns and the collector prepared returns in which he treated the entire profit on the sale as income realized in 1928. Held, without deciding whether the sale was an installment sale, that petitioners may not return the profit on the installment basis. Joe Goldberg,14 B.T.A. 465, followed.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Arundell:
These proceedings, consolidated on motion of petitioners, involve deficiencies in income taxes and penalties for the *257year 1928 as follows: Sarah Briarly, tax, $386.10; penalty, $96.52; and Mary Cunningham, tax, $478.60; penalty, $119.65.
The single error alleged in each case is the respondent’s refusal to allow the petitioners to report income from the sale of real estate on the installment basis. The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by reference as our findings of fact.
Each of the petitioners in 1928 owned an undivided one-third interest in real estate in New York…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Burnet v. S. & L. Building Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Goldberg v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Rundel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Reaver v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Hartman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Farber v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Susie K. Ackerman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- Ireland v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.