Case: Appeal of E. ALICE JAMES
Abbreviation: Appeal of James
Decision Date: 1925-01-31
Docket Number: Docket No. 461
Citation: 1 B.T.A. 548
Volume: 1
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Appeal of E. ALICE JAMES.
Judges: Before James, Sterni-iagen, and Teussell.
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
Appeal of E. ALICE JAMES.
Docket No. 461.
Submitted January 22, 1925;
decided January 31, 1925.
F. J. Sullivan, O. P. A., for the taxpayer.
Benjamin H. Saimders, Esq. (Nelson T. Hartson, Solicitor of Internal Revenue) for the Commissioner.
Before James, Sterni-iagen, and Teussell.

Opinion:
opinion.
Sternhagen :
The taxpayer, although not denying that the entire transaction was profitable, contends that the profit should be spread so that each payment received upon the notes would be treated as including a pro rata share of the income. But there is no evidence before us from -which we could infer that the property received in payment at the time of sale was not worth its face value. The cash was worth $5,000, the release from the obligation of the first mortgage was worth $5,000, and the notes were non constat worth their full face value (of. Wolf son's Appeal, 1 B. T. A. 538) and were in due course promptly paid. We think, as in GhurcMIVs Appeal, 1 B. T. A. 168, that the gain was realized in 1920, as determined by the Commissioner.