Goldsborough v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
LOSSES. - Petitioner's mother-in-law, solely at the instance of petitioner, purchased certain securities, at which time petitioner stated to her that should she sustain a loss by reason of such purchase he would reimburse her accordingly. Held that under the loss provisions of section 214 of the 1921 Act, the petitioner is not entitled to deduct the amount he paid his mother-in-law in 1922 for the losses she sustained in that year.
1Opinion of the Court
*182OPINION.
Gkeen :
The sole issue in controversy is whether the $5,757.25 paid by the petitioner to his mother-in-law represents an allowable deduction.
The points relied upon by the petitioner, as stated in his brief, are as follows:
1. That the payment of said amount to Mrs. Showell was in fulfillment of a legal and enforceable obligation.
2. That the said payment was in fulfillment of a moral obligation and was made under circumstances which render the amount thereof deductible.
3. That the said payment represents a loss to the taxpayer on a transaction entered into for profit.
The statute docs not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
3Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Ditmars v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Goldsborough v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929