Cross v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
In 1925 the petitioner determined a certain debt to be worthless, charged it off his books and claimed a deduction therefor. All the facts and circumstances upon which the determination of worthlessness could be based had existed without charge since the latter part of 1921, and were fully known to the petitioner during all that time. Held, the petitioner is not entitled to the deduction claimed in 1925.
1Opinion of the Court
*930OPINION.
Maeqtjette:
The petitioner contends that in computing his net income for 1925 he should be allowed a deduction of $6,200 on account of a debt ascertained to be worthless and charged off in that year. The debt was evidenced by a demand promissory note for $6,200 signed by one J. F. Pullen in June, 1921, and payable to the order of petitioner’s wife, and her mother and sister. The consideration for the note was 124 shares of bank stock owned by the petitioner and by him sold to Pullen. The payees of the note declined to take it and pay petitioner cash for it, as he had expected them to…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- G. M. Standifer Constr. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Heinz v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Watson v. FahsDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1954
- Cross v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.