Kennemer v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Respondent's determination that the individual petitioners received taxable distributions in liquidation in 1929, under the Revenue Act of 1928, section 115(c), and that the corporate petitioner was the owner and operator of a certain business, and, therefore, the proper taxpayer of the income taxes arising upon the income of that business for the taxable period, for which the pending deficiency was determined against it, is sustained.
1Opinion of the Court
*421OPINION.
Leech:
The first question is whether the Kennemer brothers received dividends in liquidation within the meaning of section 115 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1928.
“Liquidation is a question of fact.” John Milton, 33 B. T. A. 4, 8; C. M. Menzies, Inc., 34 B. T. A. 163, 168. The adoption or failure to adopt a resolution of dissolution or liquidation is not controlling or determinative, nor the fact that the company was not formally dissolved but was later revived after forfeiture of its charter for failure to pay the franchise tax. Ward M. Canaday, Inc., 29 B. T. A. 355, 361; affirmed in Ward…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Weiss v. WeinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
3Cited by4 opinions
- A. S. Genecov and Wife, Hilda Genecov v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Horn & Hardart Baking Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
- Hageman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Kennemer v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937