Morris Plan Co. of St. Joseph v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*1193OPINION.
Aenold :
There is no serious dispute in this proceeding with regard to the principal facts. Petitioner purchased notes secured by chattel *1194mortgages, which were represented to be genuine but were later discovered to be forgeries. The question we must determine is whether the transactions between the Appliance Co. and petitioner created debts, as contended by respondent, or amounted to a loss in the nature of theft by deceit and artifice, as contended by the petitioner. No contention is made by petitioner that its funds were embezzled.
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wiest v. United States Health & Accident InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
3Cited by9 opinions
- Monteleone v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Burns v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- McKinley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Enrick v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Kreiner v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.