First State Bank v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
During the year 1920, there was, pursuant to law, levied and collected from the petitioner for the maintenance of the Depositors' Guaranty Fund, the amount of $2,474.04. Held that the amount so levied and collected is an ordinary and necessary business expense and as such is a proper deduction from gross income for 1920.
1Opinion of the Court
*976OPINION.
Love:
The petitioner takes the position that the amount levied and collected from it during 1920, for the maintenance of the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund (hereinafter called the Fund) is an ordinary and necessary business expense, and is, therefore, deductible.
The respondent, on the other hand, takes .the position that the amount so paid into the Fund is not deductible. In support of this position he urges, first, that if the amount in question should be classed as an expense, it does not constitute a necessary expense because under the State law the petitioner could elect to operate…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- American National Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Guardian Fire & Life Assurance Co. v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lincoln Sav. & Loan Asso. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Central Nat'l Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- First State Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- First State Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Lincoln Sav. & Loan Asso. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.