Gregg Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A meeting of the petitioner's board of directors was held, at which three of the five members were present. The other two were not notified of the meeting prior thereto. The declaration of a dividend at the above meeting served to reduce surplus for invested capital purposes.
1Opinion of the Court
*88OPINION.
MuRDOCK:
The record in these cases does not disclose the computation of the petitioner’s invested capital used by the Commissioner in determining the deficiencies, and we do not know exactly what he has done as a result of the declaration of the dividend on May 11, 1918. It appears, however, from the statements attached to the deficiency notices, that he has reduced invested capital for each year to some extent on account of this dividend. The petitioner claims that the deficiencies result from the failure of the Commissioner, in determining invested capital, to treat the dividend as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Continental Securities Co. v. . BelmontNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Continental Ins. Co. v. . N.Y. H.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Chase v. TuttleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gregg Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932