Ashton v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
In 1934 taxpayer liquidated certain shares of building and loan association stock and suffered a loss thereby. The shares had been held for more than two years but had not matured.
Read the full summary
In 1934 taxpayer liquidated certain shares of building and loan association stock and suffered a loss thereby. The shares had been held for more than two years but had not matured. Held, that the transaction constituted a distribution in partial liquidation within the meaning of section 115 of the Revenue Act of 1934 and resulted in a capital loss to the taxpayer and the amount of his deductible loss is limited by section 117:d) of the Revenue Act of 1934. Henderson v. United States,22 Fed.Supp. 206.
1Opinion of the Court
*890OPINION.
Black :
Petitioner, in support of his contention that the loss which he suffered in 1934 by reason of his withdrawal as a shareholder of the Business Men’s Building & Loan Association was an ordinary loss *891and not a capital loss, cites Hale v. Helvering, 85 Fed. (2d) 819; John H. Watson, Jr., 27 B. T. A. 463; George A. Hellman, 33 B. T. A. 901. Those cases would undoubtedly sustain petitioner in his claim if his status when he withdrew from the Building & Loan Association had been that of a creditor.
To the aboye cited cases might be added the recent Supreme Court decision in Fairbanks…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- White v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Fairbanks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Stone v. Schiller Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Helvering v. Chester N. Weaver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Steinau v. Great Oak Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ashton v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1939
- Friedman v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956