Case ID: us-ct-cl_86/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Green, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, MARGARET H. CARRINGTON, WILLIAM J. WOODS, AND EDWIN A. FISH, AS EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WILLIAM T. CARRINGTON, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. 42899.
    Decided March 7, 1938]
    
      Mr. George H. Graven for the plaintiffs. Messrs. Charles Angulo, Russell L. Bradford,, and Taylor, Blano, Oapron & Marsh were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. Guy Patten, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General J ames W. Morris, for the defendant. Messrs. Robert N. Anderson and Fred K. Dyar were on the brief.
   Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, as executors of the estate of William T. ■Carrington, deceased, have duly filed a claim for refund of taxes paid by the decedent for the year 1929 on the ground that in computing the taxes of the decedent for that year the Commissioner failed to allow $89,000 as a bad debt deduction by reason of which the decedent’s taxes were overpaid in the sum of $13,958.14, for which sum judgment is asked.

Tbe commissioner of this court found that in the years 1927 and 1928 the decedent made loans aggregating $89,000 to a corporation known as the American Society for Opera in English, Inc., and that in 1929 he ascertained the debts created thereby to be worthless. Counsel for defendant argue that the evidence does not sustain the commissioner’s findings. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence as we agree with our commissioner and have affirmed his conclusions.

The defendant also contends that there is no evidence that the decedent charged off the loans on any books, and argues that as the decedent did not claim the deduction in his return it can not be allowed. The decedent kept no books of account and when his 1929 tax return was being made up he stated to his agent who was preparing the return that the loans were a total loss and that he wanted them charged off on the return. The failure to include the deduction in the return is thus fully explained. Under the circumstances, we think the plaintiffs were entitled to make a claim for refund. See Peters v. United States, 80 C. Cls. 830.

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover $13,953.14 together with interest thereon as provided by law. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.