King Amusement Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Petitioner paid $50,000 to two of its stockholders in 1920, in consideration of their becoming guarantors under a renewal lease to begin May 1, 1926. Held, that this was not an allowable deduction from gross income in 1920 under the provisions of section 234(a)(1), Revenue Act of 1921.
1Opinion of the Court
*568OPINION.
Littleton:
The issue is whether the amount of $50,000 paid by the petitioner to Finsterwald and King in consideration for their becoming guarantors for the petitioner in the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of a certain lease constitutes an allowable deduction from gross income under the provisions of section 234 (a) (1), which reads as follows:(a) That in computing the net income of a corporation subject to the tax imposed by section 230 there shall be allowed as deductions:(1) All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lychuk v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2001
- Boos v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- David J. Lychuk and Mary K. Lychuk v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2001
- King Amusement Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Lychuk v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.