Guren v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, the delivery by the pledgor to the pledgee of a demand promissory note does not constitute the "payment" of the pledge within the meaning of sec. 170(a)(1), notwithstanding the fact that the maker of the note had the resources to pay the note on demand and that the note might be enforceable under local law. Norman Petty, 40 T.C. 521 (1963), followed.
1Opinion of the Court
Quealy, Judge:
The respondent determined a deficiency of $14,955 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for the taxable year 1971. The sole question for decision is whether a contribution to United Jewish Appeal, Inc., in the form of a demand promissory note constitutes “payment” within the meaning of section 170(a)(1),1 thereby entitling petitioner to a deduction of a charitable contribution for the amount of the note in the taxable year 1971.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eckert v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Helvering v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Time Oil Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- Sachs v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Slaymaker Lock Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Baltimore Dairy Lunch, Inc., a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Don E. Williams Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Tidler v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Don E. Williams Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Guren v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Winston v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984