Mayer v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
From the peculiar facts present it is held that the gross income of a partnership of which the petitioner was a member should reflect income and deductions of a corporation organized by the partnership in 1897 to hold record title to real estate acquired with consideration furnished by the partnership.
1Opinion of the Court
*118OPINION.
Disney:
The respondent has determined a deficiency of $311.05 against the petitioner for 1932. The question is whether the net loss of Fleischner, Mayer & Co., a partnership of which the petitioner was a member, should include income and deductions of the Northwest Real Estate & Investment Co., a corporation. The facts were stipulated.
The partnership, formed many years prior to 1897 and having its principal business in Portland, Oregon, owned the premises upon which its office and warehouse were located, and other real estate which it acquired in settlement of accounts and notes…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Eisner v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Dalton v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. LewellynSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Rhodes v. PeeryOregon Supreme Court · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Brager Building & Land CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1941
- Bannister v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Bayard v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1938
- Lutz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Mayer v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937