Case: A. P. Schiro, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: A. P. Schiro, Inc. v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1930-09-26
Docket Number: Docket No. 33459
Citation: 20 B.T.A. 1026
Volume: 20
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: A. P. Schiro, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 1026–1027

Head Matter:
A. P. Schiro, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket No. 33459.
Promulgated September 26, 1930.
John J. Finnom, Esq., for the petitioner.
J. Arthur Adams, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Love:
Petitioner's counsel contended at the hearing that the amount of $20,000 should be prorated over the term of the lease, and an aliquot part returned each year thereof, instead of including the entire amount as income in the year in which it was received. We have held in similar cases that this could not be done. See Roby Realty Co., 19 B. T. A. 696, and cases cited therein, and Automobile Underwriters, Inc., 19 B. T. A. 1160. The respondent's determination on this issue is approved.
Petitioner offered no evidence in connection with the second assignment of error, and, in the absence of such evidence, we must affirm the respondent's determination relative thereto.
Judgment will be entered for the respondent.