General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. During the year 1929 the petitioner paid counsel fees in defending itself in a suit brought against it by the United States upon the ground that it was violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act. The litigation was terminated in 1929 by the entry of a consent decree.
Read the full summary
1. During the year 1929 the petitioner paid counsel fees in defending itself in a suit brought against it by the United States upon the ground that it was violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act. The litigation was terminated in 1929 by the entry of a consent decree. Held, that the attorney fees paid in connection with the litigation are a legal deduction from gross income. 2. In 1929 the petitioner paid $70,200 for the purchase of stock of a new corporation, against which it issued allotment certificates to certain of its managers and executives. Held, that the $70,200 is…
1Opinion of the Court
GENERAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 66511.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
32 B.T.A. 1011; 1935 BTA LEXIS 854;
July 25, 1935, Promulgated
1. During the year 1929 the petitioner paid counsel fees in defending itself in a suit brought against it by the United States upon the ground that it was violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act. The litigation was terminated in 1929 by the entry of a consent decree. Held, that the attorney fees paid in connection with…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Welch v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Kornhauser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Handy & Harman v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Backer v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1924
- Burroughs Bldg. Material Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.