Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Petitioner, in 1934, in order to obtain a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, executed a written contract containing a provision that so long as the note remained unpaid it would pay no dividends "without the prior written consent of the R.F.C." Petitioner during the taxable year did not ask for or obtain such consent and paid no dividends.
Read the full summary
1. Petitioner, in 1934, in order to obtain a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, executed a written contract containing a provision that so long as the note remained unpaid it would pay no dividends "without the prior written consent of the R.F.C." Petitioner during the taxable year did not ask for or obtain such consent and paid no dividends. Held, petitioner is entitled to credit under section 26(c)(1), Revenue Act of 1936. 2. In the same written contract petitioner agreed that it would not increase the compensation of its officers without the prior written consent of R.F.C.…
1Opinion of the Court
COTTON STATES FERTILIZER CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 105397.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
47 B.T.A. 748; 1942 BTA LEXIS 651;
September 23, 1942, Promulgated
1. Petitioner, in 1934, in order to obtain a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, executed a written contract containing a provision that so long as the note remained unpaid it would pay no dividends "without the prior written consent of the R.F.C." Petitioner during the taxable year did not ask for or obtain such consent and paid no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1942