Ford v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioners acquired at different times and at different prices shares of stock, for which they held certificates, most of which were for the same number of shares. Upon a split-up of the stock, they surrendered at one time all of their certificates and received new certificates on the basis of five new shares for each old share.
Read the full summary
The petitioners acquired at different times and at different prices shares of stock, for which they held certificates, most of which were for the same number of shares. Upon a split-up of the stock, they surrendered at one time all of their certificates and received new certificates on the basis of five new shares for each old share. They maintained records of their acquisitions upon which, at the time of the exchange, they allocated each new certificate to a particular old one, which allocation was made on the basis of the certificate numbers, the lowest old certificate number being…
1Opinion of the Court
*1235OPINION.
Murdock.:
The parties state that the only question in issue in these proceedings is whether the shares sold are sufficiently identified as from particular lots purchased so as to take the basis of shares from those particular lots, or whether, because of insufficient identification, the “first in, first out” rule is applicable. Neither party invokes the rule first amiounced by the Board in Olive Hume Oliver, 30 B. T. A. 1381 (affd., 79 Fed. (2d) 561), and followed in Alvin T. Fuller, 31 B. T. A. 154 (reversed 81 Fed. (2d) 176). The Board held in those cases that there could be no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Helvering v. RankinSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Towne v. McElligottDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1921
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hitchcock v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1940
- Florence G. Willock v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Ford v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936