Brownsville & Matamoros Bridge Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The motion of the Commissioner to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction in this Board to hear and determine appeals from deficiencies arising out of the application of the provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, is denied in accordance with the decision and opinion in the Appeal of Oesterlein Machine Company,1 B.T.A. 159. 2. Where the taxpayer is able to adduce proof of the value of its properties, tangible and intangible, for purposes of invested…
Read the full summary
1. The motion of the Commissioner to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction in this Board to hear and determine appeals from deficiencies arising out of the application of the provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, is denied in accordance with the decision and opinion in the Appeal of Oesterlein Machine Company,1 B.T.A. 159. 2. Where the taxpayer is able to adduce proof of the value of its properties, tangible and intangible, for purposes of invested capital, the Commissioner is not authorized to compute the tax, over the protest of the taxpayer, under the provisions of…
1Opinion of the Court
*322OPINION.
Korner:
To the taxpayer’s petition in this appeal filed, the Commissioner interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of this Board, which plea is here considered as a motion to dismiss. The hasis of the Commissioner’s motion is that the determination of the deficiency was made pursuant to discretionary authority lodged in the Commissioner in respect of assessments made pursuant to the provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917 and that such determination made pursuant to such authority is not reviewable by this Board or by any other tribunal. This motion of the Commissioner to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brownsville & Matamoros Bridge Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925