Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not, under the Revenue Act of 1924, operate to make a decision in a former case involving the years 1918 and 1919 conclusive as to a subsequent proceeding for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. Union Metal Manufacturing Co.,4 B.T.A. 287, followed. 2. Loss of a department of the business carried on by petitioner denied where loss was sustained in years prior to those here involved and where cost of assets constituting the department of the…
Read the full summary
1. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not, under the Revenue Act of 1924, operate to make a decision in a former case involving the years 1918 and 1919 conclusive as to a subsequent proceeding for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. Union Metal Manufacturing Co.,4 B.T.A. 287, followed. 2. Loss of a department of the business carried on by petitioner denied where loss was sustained in years prior to those here involved and where cost of assets constituting the department of the business not proven.
1Opinion of the Court
*1229OPINION.
Millieen:
Counsel for the respondent objected to the introduction of any evidence in this proceeding on the ground that the doctrine of res adjudicata precludes the introduction of any proof as competent evidence in this appeal and asks us to affirm the deficiencies now asserted on the basis of the decision in Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co., 3 B. T. A. 69. We have heretofore passed on this question adversely to the respondent’s contentions in Union Metal Manufacturing Co., 4 B. T. A. 287. Counsel for the petitioner at the hearing had in this proceeding stated that the principal error…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Ferris v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1938