Amsterdam Theatres Corp. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The petitioner, having failed to prove the cost of a certain franchise, has failed to show error in respondent's determination of deductions for exhaustion thereof. 2. The cost of improvements to the floor supports and roof of a building held not to have been been ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in a trade or business and therefore not deductible.
1Opinion of the Court
AMSTERDAM THEATRES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Amsterdam Theatres Corp. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 43624.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
24 B.T.A. 1161; 1931 BTA LEXIS 1530;
December 17, 1931, Promulgated
1. The petitioner, having failed to prove the cost of a certain franchise, has failed to show error in respondent's determination of deductions for exhaustion thereof.
2. The cost of improvements to the floor supports and roof of a building held not to have been been ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in a trade or business and therefore not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co. v. BeaumontSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Potter v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Parkersburg Iron & Steel Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Amsterdam Theatres Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Black Hardware Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.