Case Name: D. H. Pond, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1928-06-27
Citations: 12 B.T.A. 865
Docket Number: Docket No. 14460
Parties: D. H. Pond, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Volume: 12
Pages: 865–866

Head Matter:
D. H. Pond, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket No. 14460.
Promulgated June 27, 1928.
Paul Howland, Esq., for the petitioner.
Frank Easby-Smith, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
Littleton:
The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $332.32 income tax for the calendar year 1920. The petitioner claims that the Commissioner erred in adding to his income for the taxable year the amount of $1,971.55 as interest on bonds and mortgages for' the reason that the amount of $1,971.55 belonged to and was income of his brother, H. W. Pond.
Petitioner is a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Prior to the taxable year petitioner and his brother, H. W. Pond, owned certain property which they sold and received therefor a mortgage, which, for convenience, was made to the Guardian Savings & Trust Co., as trustee, for the joint account of the two brothers, to pay income from said mortgage, less the charges and expenses incident to the execution thereof, one-half to the petitioner and one-half to his brother, H. W. Pond. The Guardian Savings & Trust Co. also held certain bonds belonging to the petitioner and his brother, the income from which was paid to them according to their interests. Petitioner and his brother each reported as income for 1920 his proportion of the interest received from the trustee and paid the tax thereon., Petitioner reported $1,542.68 from this source which was the amount belonging to him. The total interest from bonds and mortgage received by the petitioner and his brother amounted to $3,514.23. Petitioner's brother, H. W. Pond, reported his proportion of this .interest. The 'Commissioner held that because the information certificate, Form 1099, filed with him by the Guardian Savings & Trust Co. showed the total interest as having been paid to the petitioner, his income should be increased accordingly. In this the Commissioner was in error.
Judgment will he entered under Rule SO.