Cohen v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. It is not the duty of the Board, even by agreement of the parties, to determine abstract questions on assumed facts. There must be a real controversy, the facts of which must be established either by a bona fide stipulation or by evidence. 2. Under the Revenue Act of 1921 a liquidating distribution is taxable as a dividend and not as a capital gain. 3. To tax the gain as dividend is clearly not unconstitutional; and, assuming that the statute may, under certain…
Read the full summary
1. It is not the duty of the Board, even by agreement of the parties, to determine abstract questions on assumed facts. There must be a real controversy, the facts of which must be established either by a bona fide stipulation or by evidence. 2. Under the Revenue Act of 1921 a liquidating distribution is taxable as a dividend and not as a capital gain. 3. To tax the gain as dividend is clearly not unconstitutional; and, assuming that the statute may, under certain conditions, be applied so as to tax a real loss as a gain, a taxpayer may not urge its invalidity on that ground in the absence of…
1Opinion of the Court
EMANUEL COHEN, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
FRANK COHEN, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Cohen v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 28318, 28319.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
20 B.T.A. 647; 1930 BTA LEXIS 2068;
September 3, 1930, Promulgated
1. It is not the duty of the Board, even by agreement of the parties, to determine abstract questions on assumed facts. There must be a real controversy, the facts of which must be established either by a bona fide stipulation or by evidence.
2. Under the Revenue Act of 1921 a liquidating distribution is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cohen v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930