Case: Caroline V. Limroth and Security Trust Company, Executors Under the Will of Charles W. Limroth, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Raymond L. Warren, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; William C. Davis, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; Edward West, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Limroth v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1931-03-06
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 42201, 42218, 42219, 42238
Citation: 22 B.T.A. 595
Volume: 22
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Caroline V. Limroth and Security Trust Company, Executors Under the Will of Charles W. Limroth, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Raymond L. Warren, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. William C. Davis, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Edward West, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Caroline V. Limroth and Security Trust Company, Executors Under the Will of Charles W. Limroth, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Raymond L. Warren, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. William C. Davis, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Edward West, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 42201, 42218, 42219, 42238.
Promulgated March 6, 1931.
Frank S. Norcross, Esq., and S. Louis Davis, Esq., for the petitioners.
Edward West pro se.
J. 0. Rhyne, Esq., and Warren F. Wattles, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Arundell:
The respondent asserts that the payments made to the stockholders in 1926 represent distributions of corporate assets in the guise of salaries. To sustain his burden of proof he produced as a witness the taxpayer's bookkeeper, whose uncontradicted testimony was that the payments made to the stockholders in 1926 represented compensation for services rendered. His further testimony was that the sums were reasonable for the services performed. In our opinion respondent has completely failed in his proof.
Decision will be entered for the petitioners.