DocketNumber: Docket No. 39648
Citation Numbers: 20 B.T.A. 234
Judges: Marquette
Filed Date: 7/15/1930
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
This Board in a number of cases has held that under circumstances such as we have here the forgiveness or cancellation of a debt, in whole or in part, by a creditor does not result in income to the debtor. Meyer Jewelry Co., 3 B. T. A. 1319; Smith Insurance Service, Inc., 9 B. T. A. 284; John F. Campbell Co., 15 B. T. A. 458; and Simmons Gin Co., 16 B. T. A. 793. These cases are not distinguishable in principle from the instant case and we therefore hold that the petitioner realized no income in 1924 as a result of the compromise and reduction of its indebtedness effected by it with its creditors. See also Bowers v. Kerbaugh Empire Co., 271 U. S. 170; United States v. Oregon-Washington Co. (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 251 Fed. 211; Independent Brewery Co., 4 B. T. A. 870; and New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Ry. Co., 6 B. T. A. 436.
The respondent contends, however, that if the petitioner did not realize income in 1924 directly as a result of the compromise of its indebtedness, the compromise nevertheless represented a reduction of the cost of the goods for which the compromised obligations were incurred, and that the part of the obligation remitted or forgiven by the creditors, to wit, $49,886.75, should be deducted from the cost of the goods purchased in 1923. Assuming, but not deciding, that the amount saved to the petitioner by the compromise should be regarded as a reduction of the cost of the goods for which the obliga
Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.