Handy & Harman v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The Commissioner had authority to reconsider and reverse the determination of his predecessor in office that the petitioner and Hamilton & DeLoss, Inc., were affiliated during the year 1918 and the period January 1 to February 1, 1919. 2. The petitioner and Hamilton & DeLoss, Inc., were not affiliated during the year 1918 and the period January 1 to February 1, 1919, within the meaning of section 240 of the Revenue Act of 1918.
1Opinion of the Court
HANDY & HARMAN, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Handy & Harman v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 19467, 19837.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
17 B.T.A. 980; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2211;
October 16, 1929, Promulgated
1. The Commissioner had authority to reconsider and reverse the determination of his predecessor in office that the petitioner and Hamilton & DeLoss, Inc., were affiliated during the year 1918 and the period January 1 to February 1, 1919.
2. The petitioner and Hamilton & DeLoss, Inc., were not affiliated during the year 1918 and the period January 1 to February 1,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In re Temtor Corn & Fruit Products Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1924
- Yokohama Ki-Ito Kwaisha, Ltd. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Appeal of Estate of TylerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Estate of Dodge v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Handy & Harman v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929