Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held that the petitioner has not established error on the part of the respondent in including in income gains realized from insurance on two cotton gins destroyed by fire, the evidence being insufficient to show that petitioner complied with the requirements of section 234(a)(14) of the Revenue Act of 1921 in acquiring one gin by foreclosure and in constructing another. 2. Deductions allowed for the cost of replacing parts of cotton gins, the replacements being made after…
Read the full summary
1. Held that the petitioner has not established error on the part of the respondent in including in income gains realized from insurance on two cotton gins destroyed by fire, the evidence being insufficient to show that petitioner complied with the requirements of section 234(a)(14) of the Revenue Act of 1921 in acquiring one gin by foreclosure and in constructing another. 2. Deductions allowed for the cost of replacing parts of cotton gins, the replacements being made after petitioner had sold the gins.
1Opinion of the Court
CHICKASHA COTTON OIL CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 30165.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
18 B.T.A. 1144; 1930 BTA LEXIS 2509;
February 14, 1930, Promulgated
1. Held that the petitioner has not established error on the part of the respondent in including in income gains realized from insurance on two cotton gins destroyed by fire, the evidence being insufficient to show that petitioner complied with the requirements of section 234(a)(14) of the Revenue Act of 1921 in acquiring one gin by foreclosure and in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930