Central Consumers Wine & Liquor Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. A stock subscription agreement of itself is not property, can not be regarded as such under the invested capital provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918, and a corporation may not include in invested capital the amount of unpaid subscriptions to its capital stock. 2. Under the Revenue Acts of 1917 and of 1918, actual values only may be included in invested capital, and the burden of proving actual value is on the taxpayer. 3. Where taxpayer corporation entered into…
Read the full summary
1. A stock subscription agreement of itself is not property, can not be regarded as such under the invested capital provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918, and a corporation may not include in invested capital the amount of unpaid subscriptions to its capital stock. 2. Under the Revenue Acts of 1917 and of 1918, actual values only may be included in invested capital, and the burden of proving actual value is on the taxpayer. 3. Where taxpayer corporation entered into cooperative agreements with retail liquor dealers whereby they became purchasers of its capital stock, and, in consideration of…
1Opinion of the Court
*1193OPINION.
James :
The taxpayer alleges three grounds of appeal from the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. The taxpayer appears not to have claimed obsolescence of good will of its business in connection with its original returns for the years here in question, but it did make such claim in the course of its negotiations with the Commissioner concerning the deficiency here in issue.
The taxpayer claims that the Commissioner erred in refusing to include in its invested capital good will, so called, in the sums respectively for two years of $97,131.31 and $92,631.31. The origin of this…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Sanger v. UptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Stoddard v. . LumNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Bank of China, Japan & the Straits, Ltd. v. MorseNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Beals v. Buffalo Expanded Metal Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Kohlmetz v. CalkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Central Consumers Wine & Liquor Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925
- Mossberg Pressed Steel Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928