Thomas v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Moneys advanced by petitioner to a corporation in 1938 and early 1939 constituted a capital investment in and not a loan to that corporation. Since this investment became worthless in the tax year the loss thus sustained is a capital loss, the deductibility of which is limited by section 23 (g) (1) and (2) of the Revenue Act of 1938.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Leech, Judge:
Respondent now concedes that petitioner sustained a loss in the admitted amount of the moneys he furnished to Pylac. His position apparently is, however, that these advances were a capital investment in the form of “rights to * * * receive [Py-lac] shares” which became worthless during the tax year, and that the resulting loss was therefore a capital loss, the deductibility of which is limited by section 117 of the Revenue Act of 1938. See section 23 (g) (1), (2), and (3) of that act.
Petitioner opposes this position. He contends that his admitted advancements constituted…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Bank of United States v. DandridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- In re McLean-Bowman Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
3Cited by36 opinions
- Schnitzer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Dobkin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- Colony, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Earle, Collector of Internal Revenue v. W. J. Jones & Son, Inc. United States v. W. J. Jones & Son, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Bachrach v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.