Badger Lumber Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Certain adjustments of investment capital made by the respondent allowed in part and disallowed in part. 2. Established facts do not sustain petitioner's claim for special assessment.
1Opinion of the Court
*365OPINION.
Lansdon :
The respondent has held that two monetary obligations of the petitioner operated to reduce its statutory invested capital for the tax period ended April 30, 1920. One of these was an item of $85,236.48, representing the dividend which the petitioner declared June 4, 1919, payable to stock owners of November 1, 1919. The other was the petitioner’s unpaid balance of $151,200 owing to Seibel for the purchase of his 185 shares of common stock.
Respecting the first of these items, the respondent concluded that petitioner’s act on June 28, 1919, in crediting its dividend account for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Edwards v. DouglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Douglas v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Richter & Co. v. LightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Cogswell v. Second National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- Clearfield Lumber Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Badger Lumber Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933