Hunt v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. No profit was realized by the petitioner from the conveyance by him to his daughter in the year 1920 of certain real estate involved herein. 2. An allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of a certain building owned by the petitioner, computed at the rate of 2 per cent, held to be reasonable. 3. Amounts drawn by the petitioner in the years 1920 and 1921 from a corporation in which he held a controlling interest, held to constitute distributions of profits, and…
Read the full summary
1. No profit was realized by the petitioner from the conveyance by him to his daughter in the year 1920 of certain real estate involved herein. 2. An allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of a certain building owned by the petitioner, computed at the rate of 2 per cent, held to be reasonable. 3. Amounts drawn by the petitioner in the years 1920 and 1921 from a corporation in which he held a controlling interest, held to constitute distributions of profits, and therefore are taxable as dividends.
1Opinion of the Court
DANIEL HUNT, SR., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Hunt v. Commissioner
Docket No. 7703.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
6 B.T.A. 558; 1927 BTA LEXIS 3471;
March 22, 1927, Promulgated
1. No profit was realized by the petitioner from the conveyance by him to his daughter in the year 1920 of certain real estate involved herein.
2. An allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of a certain building owned by the petitioner, computed at the rate of 2 per cent, held to be reasonable.
3. Amounts drawn by the petitioner in the years 1920 and 1921 from a corporation in which he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hunt v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927