¶1dissenting: It seems to me that petitioner, during the tax year, never received, as his own, the $1,760.12 he paid to E. L. Bruce Co. That money was not then subject to his “unfettered command … to enjoy at his option”, as the Supreme Court said in Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376. He received it merely as agent for his customers to pay to the Bruce Co. for the account of those customers under the contract of purchase. As to that item, I think the case is controlled by Commissioner v. Cleveland Trinidad Paving Co., 62 Fed. (2d) 85, and Benjamin Franklin Patterson, 21 B. T. A. 8; petition for review dismissed, 59 Fed. (2d) 1055. Cf. Stoner v. Commissioner, 79 Fed. (2d) 75; reversing 29 B. T. A. 953.
36 B.T.A. 121
Hyatt v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided June 15, 1937
United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1937-06-15
The taxpayer, licensed by the manufacturer to sell and apply a preparation against termites and guaranteeing effectiveness for five years, was required by the license contract to send to the licensor 10 percent of the price of his contracts with customers, to be held in escrow as a guaranty fund until expiration of the guaranty period; this requirement he fulfilled only in part. The full amount of the contract prices should be included in the taxpayer's income.
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1950
Relies on Corliss v. Bowers · Stoner v. Commissioner · Patterson v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1937-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →