Court Opinion

ID: 4629335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-21 03:05:11.041563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:57:21.444291
License: Public Domain

HUGO A. LINDENBERG, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.  E. J. FOX, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.Lindenberg v. CommissionerDocket Nos. 6878, 6880.United States Board of Tax Appeals6 B.T.A. 525; 1927 BTA LEXIS 3493; March 15, 1927, Promulgated *3493  Evidence held insufficient to establish market value of goods inventoried at cost.  C. Clive Clark, Esq., for the petitioners.  J. S. Halstead, Esq., for the respondent.  MURDOCK *526  The above-entitled proceedings were consolidated at the hearing.  The Commissioner determined deficiencies for each of the above petitioners for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, as set forth below: Hugo A. LindenbergYear.Amount.1919 Additional tax due$14.421920 Additional tax due762.59$777.011921 Over-assessment128.92Net deficiency648.09E. J. Fox1919 Additional tax due$193.551920 Additional tax due767.04$960.591921 Over-assessment143.57Net deficiency817.02The petitioners acquiesce in the changes made by the Commissioner, but now allege error in that they have overstated their partnership inventories for the fiscal years ended April 30, 1920, and April 30, 1921, by taking them at cost instead of at market.  FINDINGS OF FACT.  The petitioners, during the taxable years 1919, 1920, and 1921, were wholesale jewelers, doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio, as a partnership*3494  under the firm name of Lindenberg & Fox.  A large part of their business consisted of the sale of diamonds and watches.  In ventories of the partnership stock as of April 30, 1920, and as of April 30, 1921, were taken on the basis of cost.  Some of the goods included in these two inventories were later sold at less than cost.  OPINION.  MURDOCK: The petitioners have attempted to prove that the market value of their goods was lower than cost.  They introduced in evidence the original sheets of adding machine figures used in taking their inventories with the totals set out.  The only indication of what goods these figures represent is that on each sheet there is a general statement of what is represented on that page, such as "Safe #3 - Jewelry," "Diamonds," "Cabinet between saves," and "Wrist-Gents watches." On some of the pages there is a gross total from which certain percentages are deducted to arrive at a net figure which also appears.  In addition three sheets were introduced in evidence showing a description of certain articles, the stock number, the April 30, 1920, inventory value, the date sold, the sale price, and the loss in respect to each.  These articles represented*3495  only a small portion of *527  the goods inventoried.  The sales took place in 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923.  From these exhibits and from the testimony offered we are not able to determine the market value of any goods as of the dates of the inventories, nor are we able to determine how cost compared with market value.  Judgment will be entered after 15 days' notice, under Rule 50.