Case Name: WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-02-25
Citations: 30 F.2d 1023
Docket Number: No. 5385
Parties: WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 30
Pages: 1023–1023

Head Matter:
WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 25, 1929.
Rehearing Denied March 25, 1929.
No. 5385.
St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, La. (G. A. Wilson, of; Greenwood, Miss., on the brief), for petitioner.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Harvey R. Gamble, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, General Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Thos. P. Dudley, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C. (Irwin R. Blaisdell, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In this case the material facts axe these: Petitioner is a Mississippi hanking corporation, with a capital stock of $25,000, all of which, except qualifying shares, is owned by G. A. Wilson. When the bank was organized, G. A. Wilson deposited eight promissory notes, of the face value of $174,100. The notes were paid at maturity. The interest, amounting to some $12,000, was credited to the surplus of the honk and the balance was credited to Wilson's account. There were very few withdrawals from this account, and from time to time it was increased. However, it was always subject to be checked out by Wilson. Petitioner, in making his returns for profit taxes for 1919 and 1920, sought to include this account as capital. This was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the tax determined accordingly. On appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, the ruling of the Commissioner was sustained. The ease presents merely questions of fact, and we find nothing in the record that would warrant a reversal of the judgment.
Affirmed.