Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not, under the Revenue Act of 1924, operate to make a decision in a former case involving the years 1918 and 1919 conclusive as to a subsequent proceeding for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. Union Metal Manufacturing Co.,4 B.T.A. 287, followed. 2. Loss of a department of the business carried on by petitioner denied where loss was sustained in years prior to those here involved and where cost of assets constituting the department of the…
Read the full summary
1. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not, under the Revenue Act of 1924, operate to make a decision in a former case involving the years 1918 and 1919 conclusive as to a subsequent proceeding for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. Union Metal Manufacturing Co.,4 B.T.A. 287, followed. 2. Loss of a department of the business carried on by petitioner denied where loss was sustained in years prior to those here involved and where cost of assets constituting the department of the business not proven.
1Opinion of the Court
CHARLES M. MONROE STATIONERY CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 18336.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
15 B.T.A. 1227; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2709;
April 2, 1929, Promulgated
1. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not, under the Revenue Act of 1924, operate to make a decision in a former case involving the years 1918 and 1919 conclusive as to a subsequent proceeding for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. Union Metal Manufacturing Co.,4 B.T.A. 287, followed.
2. Loss of a department of the business carried on by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
- Charles M. Monroe Stationery Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929