¶2The taxpayer claims in respect of both transactions set forth above that they were completed, one in 1916 and the other in 1917, and that no profit was realized by the taxpayer in the year 1918 upon either. It does not appear whether the taxpayer returned any profit upon these transactions in the years in which they actually occurred, but in the present proceeding this is not material. The position of the taxpayer that the transactions were closed and the profits realized in 1916 and 1917 is correct and the deficiency determined by the Commissioner must be disallowed.
2 B.T.A. 1027
Hinely v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided October 27, 1925
United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1925-10-27
In 1916 and 1917 the taxpayer sold certain turpentine rights and timber rights on property theretofore acquired by him, receiving payment partly in cash and partly in notes due in later years. Held that the gain from these sales accrued in 1916 and 1917, and no portion thereof was taxable in the year 1918 when certain of such notes were paid.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1929
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The taxpayer claims in respect of both transactions set forth above that they were completed, one in 1916 and the other in 1917, and that no profit was realized by the taxpayer in the year 1918 upon either. It does not appear whether the taxpayer returned any profit upon these transactions in the years in which they actually occurred, but in the present proceeding this is not material. The position of the taxpayer that the transactions were closed and the profits realized in 1916 and 1917 is correct and the deficiency determined by the Commissioner must be disallowed.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Stevens v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1925-10-27
View the full empirical analysis of this case →