Gregg Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*88OPINION.
MuRDOCK:
The record in these cases does not disclose the computation of the petitioner’s invested capital used by the Commissioner in determining the deficiencies, and we do not know exactly what he has done as a result of the declaration of the dividend on May 11, 1918. It appears, however, from the statements attached to the deficiency notices, that he has reduced invested capital for each year to some extent on account of this dividend. The petitioner claims that the deficiencies result from the failure of the Commissioner, in determining invested capital, to treat the dividend as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Continental Securities Co. v. . BelmontNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Continental Ins. Co. v. . N.Y. H.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Chase v. TuttleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.