Case: Arthur C. Levering, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Leonard M. Levering, Jr., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Levering v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1926-11-26
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 5657, 7906
Citation: 5 B.T.A. 616
Volume: 5
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Arthur C. Levering, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Leonard M. Levering, Jr., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
Arthur C. Levering, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Leonard M. Levering, Jr., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 5657, 7906.
Decided November 26, 1926.
Theodore B. Benson, Esq., for the petitioners.
W. Frank Gihhs, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Stekniiagen:
The only evidence is the testimony of one of the petitioners. He testified to all of the foregoing facts. The contention of petitioners' counsel is that the profit from the pool had been assigned to the Securo Corporation and was not income to the members of the partnership. The contention is clearly untenable. The partnership subscribed to the pool and undertook to pay the subscription if called upon. No payment was required. In 1920 a profit of $32,580 was realized from the transaction, and like any other profit it was within the partnership's gross income. What they did with it thereafter does not make it otherwise. So far as this record shows there was no consideration for the credit to the Securo Corporation, and the transfer of the profit after receipt to that corporation does not affect the question.
Judgment will be entered for the Gom-missioner.