Shope Brick Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The value of United States and Canadian patents paid in to a corporation for a consideration of $1 and $2, respectively, may not be included in invested capital under the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 as a paid-in surplus. 2. March 1, 1913, value of patents determined.
1Opinion of the Court
*1044opinion.
Morris:
At the hearing petitioner withdrew its claim for special assessment, leaving two questions for our consideration, first, whether, under section 326 of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, petitioner is entitled to a paid-in surplus on the United States and Canadian patents in computing invested capital, and, if so, the amount thereof; and, second, the value, if any, on March 1, 1913, of those patents for exhaustion purposes. In connection with the first point, the Commissioner raised the question at the hearing whether it was proper for him to have included a paid-in surplus *1045of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cushman Chuck Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- J. M. & M. S. Browning Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Shope Brick Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927