Bartos v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Neither a deductible loss in a profit transaction, nor a bad debt, held, on the facts, sustained by petitioner wife upon the subsequent settlement, pursuant to their separation agreement, of payments made to her former husband during their marriage for use in providing for their personal residence.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION'.
Opper, Judge:
It is impossible to conclude that petitioner furnished the sums in question to her then husband as a “loan.” The presumption is otherwise. Estate of Carr V. Van Anda, 12 T. C. 1158, affirmed per curiam (C. A. 2) 192 F. 2d 391; see Elizabeth N. C. Hetherington, 20 B. T. A. 806; Jacob Grossman, 9 B. T. A. 643. And petitioner’s unsupported, self-serving declarations are far from that “proof” so “certain, definite, reliable, and convincing” as to “leave no reasonable doubt as to the intention of the parties,” which is required in the premises. William Francis Mercil, 24 T.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Putnam v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Schmidlapp v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
- Rumsey v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Mercil v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Fox v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bartos v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957