Cook v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held, under the facts shown, that petitioner sustained a loss of $10,000 in the taxable year through his investment in an oil lease, which is deductible under section 241(a) of the Revenue Act of 1924. 2. Held, where thr espondent seeks affirmative relief and asks for an increased deficiency, based upon allegations in his answer of a deduction erroneously allowed, the burden is upon him to produce evidence showing that the item so disputed was, in fact, allowed as a…
Read the full summary
1. Held, under the facts shown, that petitioner sustained a loss of $10,000 in the taxable year through his investment in an oil lease, which is deductible under section 241(a) of the Revenue Act of 1924. 2. Held, where thr espondent seeks affirmative relief and asks for an increased deficiency, based upon allegations in his answer of a deduction erroneously allowed, the burden is upon him to produce evidence showing that the item so disputed was, in fact, allowed as a deduction in his computation of the tax at issue.
1Opinion of the Court
SAM COOK, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Cook v. Commissioner
Docket No. 35014.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
25 B.T.A. 92; 1932 BTA LEXIS 1582;
January 7, 1932, Promulgated
1. Held, under the facts shown, that petitioner sustained a loss of $10,000 in the taxable year through his investment in an oil lease, which is deductible under section 241(a) of the Revenue Act of 1924.
2. Held, where thr espondent seeks affirmative relief and asks for an increased deficiency, based upon allegations in his answer of a deduction erroneously allowed, the burden is upon him to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cook v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932