Case: Stephen J. Slattery, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; W. J. Cameron, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Estate of Robert M. Tietz, Louise C. Tietz, Administratrix, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Slattery v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1928-01-10
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 9312-9314
Citation: 9 B.T.A. 1123
Volume: 9
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Stephen J. Slattery, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. W. J. Cameron, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Estate of Robert M. Tietz, Louise C. Tietz, Administratrix, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 1123–1127

Head Matter:
Stephen J. Slattery, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. W. J. Cameron, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Estate of Robert M. Tietz, Louise C. Tietz, Administratrix, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 9312-9314.
Promulgated January 10, 1928.
FranJclin O. Parles, Esg., for the petitioners.
M. N. Fisher, Esg., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Siefkin:
As we construe the transaction set out in the above findings each of the three petitioners parted with a one-fourth interest in assets costing $75,000 or $18,750 each, and received (1) a twelfth interest (one-third of Miller's one-fourth interest) in the remaining assets of the former partnership; (2) a one-third interest in $15,000 cash paid by Millar; arid (3) a one-third interest in a possible right to receive $4,818.94 (depending upon a future event which did not happen). We adopt the valuation placed by the parties upon Miller's interest. Based upon such value the net assets of the partnership were $180,724.24.
The assets of the partnership excluding the assets sold, were thus of a value of $120,543.18, assuming that the consideration paid by Miller for the contracts was their value. Upon such basis each petitioner, at the time of the transfer, received an interest in property worth $10,045.26, cash of $5,000 and the possibility of getting $1,606.31 more. We, therefore, hold that in 1922, when the contingency governing the last item was still undetermined, each petitioner had sustained a loss of $2,098.43 which was deductible in that year. Until it was determined that each would not receive an additional payment of $1,606.31 that portion is not deductible.
Reviewed by the Board.
Judgment will be entered on 15 days' notice, v/nder Rule 50.