Shearer v. Commissioner

GEORGE L. SHEARER, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Shearer v. Commissioner Docket No. 27044. United States Board of Tax Appeals 18 B.T.A. 465; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2039; December 9, 1929, Promulgated *2039 1. Respondent's method of computing petitioner's normal and surtaxes for the calendar year 1922 held to be correct and in accordance with sections 205(c), 210, 211(a), and 218(a) of the Revenue Act of 1921, where petitioner reported on a calendar year basis and was a member of a partnership which reported on a fiscal year basis. Theodore Schilling,3 B.T.A. 936, followed. 2. A tax imposed on sales by manufacturers of automobiles is not deductible by individual purchasers thereof. R. C. Musser,3 B.T.A. 498, followed. C. H. Butler, Esq., for the petitioner. L. A. Luce, Esq., for the respondent. GREEN *466 In this proceeding, the petitioner seeks a redetermination of its income-tax liability for the calendar year 1922, for which year the respondent has determined a deficiency in the amount of $390.31. The petitioner alleges that the respondent erred (1) in the method employed in computing the tax on income received from a partnership keeping its books on a fiscal year basis, and (2) in disallowing as a deduction from gross income an amount of $519.75 representing taxes paid on the purchase of automobiles*2040 during the year. The facts were stipulated. FINDINGS OF FACT. The petitioner is an individual and a resident of New York City, with his offices located at 45 Wall Street. He made and filed his individual income-tax returns on the basis of a calendar year. The partnership of Stewart & Shearer, of which petitioner is a member, made and filed a partnership return of income on the basis of a fiscal year ended April 30, 1922. The net income on the return filed by the petitioner, for the calendar year 1922, amounted to $61,632.12, which included an amount of $60,343.43 representing his distributive share of the net income of the partnership of Stewart & Shearer for its fiscal year ended April 30, 1922. The petitioner's net income and resulting tax liability, as determined by the respondent, is as follows: NET INCOME Net income as disclosed by return $61,632.12 As corrected 21,331.92 Net adjustment 40,300.20 Additions: Auto tax 519.75 Deductions: 1921 income (Stewart & Shearer) 1 $40,228.95 1921 dividends (Stewart & Shearer) 1 91.00 Loss on sugar (Stewart & Shearer) 1 500.00 Total 40,819.95 Net adjustment as above 40,300.20 COMPUTATION OF TAX Total net income $21,331.92 Income subject to surtax 21,331.92 Less: Exemption $2,400.00 Dividends 442.50 2,842.50 Income subject to normal tax 18,489.42 Tax 4% on $4,000.00 $160.00 Tax 8% on $14,489.42 1,159.15 Tax 8% on $40,228.95 (1921 income) 3,218.32 Tax 12 1/2 on capital gain 38.10 Surtax at 1922 rates 546.55 Surtax at 1921 rates 7,759.17 Total tax assessable 12,881.29 Tax previously assessed 12,490.98 Additional to be assessed (deficiency) 390.31 *2041 *467 During the year 1922 the petitioner paid as part of the purchase price of automobiles, the amount of $519.75 as representing a war tax paid to the manufacturers of the automobiles. The respondent refused to allow the amount paid as a deduction from the petitioner's gross income for that year. OPINION. GREEN: The respondent's computation of net income and tax, set forth in the findings of fact, is somewhat confusing. It becomes clearer with the following explanation: The item "Net income disclosed by the return, $61,632.12," was, by the respondent, divided into two parts. The item "As corrected, $21,331.92" is that portion of the net income returned which he attributed to partnership income for 1922. The item "Net adjustment, $40,300.20" is the portion of the net income returned which, with some adjustment that we do not understand, he attributed to partnership income for 1921. The petitioner's contention with respect to the first issue is the same as that made by , in which case the respondent's determination was approved. What we said there is controlling here. Cf. *2042 , and . The second issue must also be decided adversely to the petitioner, on the grounds of our decisions in ; ; ; and . Judgment will be entered under Rule 50. Footnotes 1. To be taxed at 1921 rates. ↩