Legal Opinion
Ward Bros. Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided November 30, 1931No. Docket No. 30992PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Held, that respondent has not established that petitioner was liable as a transferee.
1Opinion of the Court
*992OPINION.
Van Fossan :
The fundamental question for determination in this proceeding is whether or not, under the provisions of - section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926, the petitioner is liable as a transferee for the additional income taxes for the jmar 1918 which were assessed against the Krug Baking Company of Ohio.
Under its contract of July 1, 1918, with William B. Ward the Krug Baking Company of Ohio made a bona fide sale of all its property of every kind to the Krug Baking Company .of Delaware, which was Ward’s assignee. There was no identity of stockholders of the two companies nor was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Austin v. SeligmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. U. S. Rubber Reclaiming WorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
3Cited by2 opinions
- Krug v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Ward Bros. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931