Anderson & Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
No part of the sales price of articles sold on the deferred payment basis constituted interest or expense which could be excluded from gross income.
1Opinion of the Court
*715OPINION.
Marquette:
The taxpayer does not claim that the Commissioner erred in disallowing as a deduction in 1919, the amount set up as a “ Reserve for Losses,” but does claim that a certain per cent of the sale price of each instrument sold on the installment plan was interest on the deferred payments and being interest was not earned until such payments were due, and that such unearned interest was improperly accrued on the books and erroneously included in income for the year of the sale. The same claim is made with reference to other amounts designated by the taxpayer as charges for the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hogg v. RuffnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Carlson v. City of HelenaMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Omaha Electric Light & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Davidson v. DavisSupreme Court of Florida · 1910
- Smith v. KaufmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Luhring Motor Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Beek v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- Kingsford Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- MacDonald v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.