Ayer v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A depletion reserve based upon discovery value substantially in excess of cost or March 1, 1913, value represents, to the extent of the excess, earnings or profits accumulated since February 28, 1913, within the meaning of section 201(a) of the Revenue Act of 1921.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock:
The record does not show the cost or March 1, 1913, value of the depletable capital assets of the Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. for which the reserve was set up. Therefore, our only concern in *285this case is whether or not any portion of the distribution in question is taxable under the Revenue Act of 1921, and if we decide that any portion is taxable we must affirm the Commissioner.
Section 201 of the Revenue Act of 1921, is, in part, as follows:(a) That the term “dividend” when used in this title * * * means any distribution made by a corporation to its shareholders or members,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. LudeySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Lynch v. HornbySupreme Court of the United States · 1918
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wheeler v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Siegel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Ayer v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Hoyt v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Inland Investors, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.