Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 B.T.A. 651

Ottolander v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided November 26, 1926

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1926-11-26

Petitioner was employed by a partnership at a salary of $200 per month and a cash bonus of one-sixth of the cash profits. He was not a member of the partnership, and had no capital investment therein. Held: that he is not chargeable with any income accrued to the partnership other than his salary of $200 per month, and one-sixth of the partnership's cash income.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1969

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-11-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION.

Lansdon:

¶2The contract of employment between the petitioner and the F and F Nurseries was oral and was to the effect that the peti*652tioner should receive for his services as office and sales manager a stated salary of $200 a month and, in addition thereto, a bonus or extra compensation equal to one-sixth of the cash profits of the employer.

¶3We are convinced that the petitioner was not a member of the partnership operating the F and F Nurseries and was not entitled to receive any part of the distributive net earnings of such partnership. The petitioner testified that neither in the taxable year nor at any subsequent time did he receive any payment on account of the additional profits which the Commissioner has determined were earned by the partnership in 1920. From this evidence, which was not rebutted in any way, we conclude that the additional income upon which this deficiency is based was neither received nor accrued by the petitioner in the taxable year.

¶4Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Giseen and Sternhagen not participating.
/5/bta/651 · .json · Public domain