Hull v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Where the president of a corporation in 1925 took possession of its certificates of deposit and held them unendorsed until 1926, when he returned them and received the corporation's check to his order in payment of a contractual obligation to him, held, that the amount thereof is within his income of 1926 and not of 1925. 2. Payment received by petitioner under an unambiguous contract, held, within ordinary income as consideration for an option and not as sale price.
1Opinion of the Court
*180OPINION.
SteRnhagen:
The petitioner urges first that the $100,000 which he received under the option contract of December 31, 1925, was actually received by him not in 1926 as the respondent now argues, but in 1925, when he took possession of the four certificates of deposit and placed them in his safe deposit box. Failing this argument, the petitioner argues in the alternative that, if the $100,000 is held to have been received by him in 1926, it is nevertheless not within his gross income because it was part of the sale price of the Arizona claims which had cost him $109,000, thus…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hull v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
- Estate of Posner v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
- Hull v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935