Gould v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Petitioner, Ezra Gould, held to have acted merely as agent in the transactions which culminated in the liquidation of the taxpayer and, having received no assets of the taxpayer, is not liable as a transferee. 2. Petitioner, Merchants Bank & Trust Co., having received assets of the taxpayer in liquidation, is held to be liable as a transferee. 3. Transfer of a bank building by the taxpayer in liquidation did not give rise to gain. 4. Respondent's disallowance of claimed…
Read the full summary
1. Petitioner, Ezra Gould, held to have acted merely as agent in the transactions which culminated in the liquidation of the taxpayer and, having received no assets of the taxpayer, is not liable as a transferee. 2. Petitioner, Merchants Bank & Trust Co., having received assets of the taxpayer in liquidation, is held to be liable as a transferee. 3. Transfer of a bank building by the taxpayer in liquidation did not give rise to gain. 4. Respondent's disallowance of claimed deduction for depreciation sustained for lack of evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
EZRA GOULD, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Gould v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 21727, 21728.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
21 B.T.A. 824; 1930 BTA LEXIS 1785;
December 19, 1930, Promulgated
1. Petitioner, Ezra Gould, held to have acted merely as agent in the transactions which culminated in the liquidation of the taxpayer and, having received no assets of the taxpayer, is not liable as a transferee.
2. Petitioner, Merchants Bank & Trust Co., having received assets of the taxpayer…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cappellini v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Barron v. McKinnonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1912
- Gould v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Cortez Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Ambler v. ArcherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1893