¶1dissenting: The petitioner is claiming a deduction for loss which occurred when a corporation in which he had invested was liquidated. Section 115 (c) provides that amounts distributed in *1238complete liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as in full payment in exchange for the stock. The Commissioner has determined that the loss was a capital loss under section 117 and limited to 30 per centum, since the asset had been held for more than ten years. A capital asset is defined as property held by the taxpayer. The petitioner made an investment of $5,000 in the.corporation on or before July 20, 1925. He retained that investment until the latter part of 1935, a period of more than ten years. He received during that time a 75 percent cash dividend on the investment, which was taxable to him as a dividend. Angelus Building & Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 57 Fed. (2d) 130, affirming 20 B. T. A. 667; certiorari denied, 286 U. S. 562. Although the original certificates evidencing his investment were illegally issued, nevertheless the group of investors recognized that all were upon the same basis and permission was obtained whereby valid certificates were issued. I think it was the intent of Congress to limit the deduction under such circumstances to 30 percent of the loss. Cf. Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U. S. 188. The view taken by the majority seems too narrow. It permits no satisfactory answer to the questions of how the dividend of $3,750 was taxable and of how the petitioner would have been taxed had he sold his investment prior to 1934.
42 B.T.A. 1232
Blaise v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Decided November 15, 1940
United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1940-11-15
- In 1925 petitioner subscribed and paid for 50 shares of capital stock of a California corporation in violation of the terms of a permit of the commissioner of corporations authorizing the issuance… Held: the Board is bound by the state rule of property in determining the period of ownership, and petitioner is entitled to deduct 80 percent of his loss under section 117(a), Revenue Act of 1934.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1961
Relies on Lyeth v. Hoey · St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Martin · Angelus Bldg. & Inv. Co. v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1940-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →