Terminal Wine Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
When the determination by the Commissioner to reject a claim for abatement of a tax theretofore assessed was made prior to the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1924, no appeal lies to this Board from such determination.
1Opinion of the Court
*701Opinion.
Koener:
This Board has heretofore held, in Garneau’s Appeal, 1 B. T. A. 75, that if, subsequent to June 2, 1924, the Commissioner determined that a deficiency was due, jurisdiction of an appeal from such determination is conferred on this Board by the Revenue Act of 1924; and that if the Commissioner so determined prior to that date, this Board is without such jurisdiction. Therein this Board declined to hold that an assessment constitutes per se a determination.
By its very definition and etymology the word “ determination ” irresistibly connotes consideration, resolution, conclusion,…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Howard S. Scar and Ethel M. Scar v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Ramon Portillo and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Abrams v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1985
- Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1939
- Foundation Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.