Sturgess v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Representatives of taxpayers are presumed to know the rules of evidence, and where, in the trial of an appeal, it develops that taxpayer's evidence is incompetent, the Board, out of deference to the interests of appellants in pending cases, will not grant a continuance to enable taxpayer to produce necessary witnesses, but will dispose of the appeal on the allegations of the petition admitted by the Commissioner. 2. The value of shares of stock in a corporation may not be…
Read the full summary
1. Representatives of taxpayers are presumed to know the rules of evidence, and where, in the trial of an appeal, it develops that taxpayer's evidence is incompetent, the Board, out of deference to the interests of appellants in pending cases, will not grant a continuance to enable taxpayer to produce necessary witnesses, but will dispose of the appeal on the allegations of the petition admitted by the Commissioner. 2. The value of shares of stock in a corporation may not be established by an ex parte report of an appraisal of its assets, not identified or explained by the corporation's…
1Opinion of the Court
APPEAL OF LEE STURGESS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LUCY H. STURGESS, DECEASED.
Sturgess v. Commissioner
Docket No. 2279.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
2 B.T.A. 69; 1925 BTA LEXIS 2562;
June 15, 1925, Decided Submitted May 19, 1925.
1. Representatives of taxpayers are presumed to know the rules of evidence, and where, in the trial of an appeal, it develops that taxpayer's evidence is incompetent, the Board, out of deference to the interests of appellants in pending cases, will not grant a continuance to enable taxpayer to produce necessary witnesses, but will dispose of the appeal on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sturgess v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925