Mickler Holding Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Mere intention to sell shares of stock, or mere declaration that shares sold were acquired at a certain time and price, without proof to identify shares sold with lots purchased, is not sufficient identification to avoid application of "first in, first out" rule of article 58, Regulations 74.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Goodrich:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,899.36 in income tax for the fiscal year ended July 31, 1929. Petitioner, a *301Minnesota corporation, having its principal office at Minneapolis, admits liability for $70.04 of this deficiency, but contends the remainder was determined in error. At trial, counsel presented a stipulation of facts which we adopt as our findings but need not repeat here in full for an understanding of the issue. The controversy relates to the amount of profit derived by petitioner upon sales of securities during the period before us. The question is, Did…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bingham v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932
- Snyder v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Stryker v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Horner v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
3Cited by8 opinions
- Oliver v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Fuller v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Miller v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Kelchner v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Allington v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.