Harmel v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioner in 1924 executed oil and gas leases covering land owned by him. The leases provided, in addition to the usual royalty, for a cash consideration which was paid to the petitioner in that year. Held that the leases were not sales of capital assets within the meaning of section 208 of the Revenue Act of 1924, and that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of that section.
1Opinion of the Court
*377OPINION.
Marquette:
It is clear that the respondent is in error with respect to the amount of $1,500 deposited by the petitioner in the First State Bank of Megargel, Tex., in December, 1924. These deposits were funds transferred from the bank of Wichita Falls to the bank of Megargel, and represented a part of the $57,000 received by the petitioner on the execution of certain oil and gas leases, which had already been included in the petitioner’s income. The amount in question should be eliminated from the petitioner’s income for 1924 as heretofore determined by the respondent.
The only other…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Harmon v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
- Anderson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Anderson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Ferguson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Harmel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.