Hewitt Rubber Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
An interest-bearing demand promissory note of a responsible and solvent maker actually and in good faith paid in for stock of a New York corporation, constitutes invested capital, to the extent of its actual cash value at the time paid in, within the meaning of section 326(a)(2) of the Revenue Act of 1918, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the New York Stock Corporation Law, that a note may not be received in payment of any installment, or any part thereof, due…
Read the full summary
An interest-bearing demand promissory note of a responsible and solvent maker actually and in good faith paid in for stock of a New York corporation, constitutes invested capital, to the extent of its actual cash value at the time paid in, within the meaning of section 326(a)(2) of the Revenue Act of 1918, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the New York Stock Corporation Law, that a note may not be received in payment of any installment, or any part thereof, due or to become due on any stock of such corporation, without personal liability of the officers or directors of the…
1Opinion of the Court
*427OPINION.
Littleton:
The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether the taxpayer is entitled, under section 326(a)(2) of the Revenue Act of 1918, in view of the provisions of the statutes of the State of New York, to have the face or full value of an interest-bearing demand promissory note given by a responsible and solvent maker in payment for an original issue of capital stock included in its invested capital from the date of the note or to have included therein only the payments made on such note from the dates of actual payments.
*428The facts surrounding the subscription of H. H.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Harris v. RunnelsSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- New York & Oswego Midland Railroad v. Van HornNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Pratt v. . ShortNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Washer v. SmyerTexas Supreme Court · 1919
- Magee v. . BadgerNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- A. Harris & Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Boston Oldsmobile Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Briggs-Weaver Mach. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Central Consumers Wine & Liquor Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925
- Deerland Turpentine Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.