C. H. Spitzner & Son, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. SECTION 104(b). - In determining whether accumulations are beyond the reasonable needs of a business, section 104(b), Revenue Act of 1932, sets up a practical rather than a theoretical test, and it is erroneous to compute a surplus based on cost of assets which are useful to the business only to the extent of their lower market value. 2. EVIDENCE, INTERESTED WITNESS. - Testimony of a witness that the corporation which took over the business and assets of a partnership of…
Read the full summary
1. SECTION 104(b). - In determining whether accumulations are beyond the reasonable needs of a business, section 104(b), Revenue Act of 1932, sets up a practical rather than a theoretical test, and it is erroneous to compute a surplus based on cost of assets which are useful to the business only to the extent of their lower market value. 2. EVIDENCE, INTERESTED WITNESS. - Testimony of a witness that the corporation which took over the business and assets of a partnership of which he was a member was formed in order to limit liability of the partners and to remove danger of liquidation of the…
1Opinion of the Court
C. H. SPITZNER & SON, INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
C. H. Spitzner & Son, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 80744.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
37 B.T.A. 511; 1938 BTA LEXIS 1025;
March 22, 1938, Promulgated
1. SECTION 104(b). - In determining whether accumulations are beyond the reasonable needs of a business, section 104(b), Revenue Act of 1932, sets up a practical rather than a theoretical test, and it is erroneous to compute a surplus based on cost of assets which are useful to the business only to the extent of their lower market value.
2. EVIDENCE,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- C. H. Spitzner & Son, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1938