Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 B.T.A. 36

Bachman v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided October 14, 1930

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1930-10-14

The petitioner is not entitled to deduct from his gross income for 1924 an amount which he paid in that year for the purpose of aiding a proposed lessee to defray its expenses of moving into a building in which he owned a one-half interest.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1931

Relies on Lovejoy v. Commissioner · Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner · Butler v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-10-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*38OPINION.

MtjRdoch :

¶2The petitioner seeks to deduct the $5,000 from his gross income for the year 1924. The respondent now takes the position that the deduction should be prorated over the term of the twenty-year lease. Counsel for the petitioner relies principally upon the case of Robert E. McNeill, 16 B. T. A. 479, but that case has since been overruled. See James M. Butler, 19 B. T. A. 718. The petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to any greater deduction than the respondent is willing to give him by prorating the $5,000 over the term of the lease. Cf. Julia Stow Lovejoy, 18 B. T. A. 1179; Bonwit Teller & Co., 17 B. T. A. 1019; Roby Realty Co., 19 B. T. A. 696; James M. Butler, supra; Evalena M. Howard et al., 19 B. T. A. 865; Central Bank Block Association, 19 B. T. A. 1183; S. M. Clawson, 19 B. T. A. 1253.

¶3Judgment will be entered for the resyondent and the deficiencies will be fownd in accordance with the stipulation.

/21/bta/36 · .json · Public domain