Kenneth David Perry and Linda Ruth Perry - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
                    court in the Davis case, wherein the court                        
                    speaks of taking from all receipts “certain                       
                    necessary items like cost of property sold”,                      
                    and contends that the respondent’s action                         
                    denies him the right to deduct from gross                         
                    receipts the cost of all items purchased by                       
                    him in the conduct of his business.  In other                     
                    words petitioner denies that he can have                          
                    income in any amount until he has recovered                       
                    his aggregate cost, and his entire argument                       
                    is based upon the proposition that the denial                     
                    of the right to reduce gross receipts by                          
                    aggregate cost creates income where none in                       
                    fact exists and, therefore, makes the                             
                    application of 23(r) unconstitutional as to                       
                    his business.                                                     
                    That portion of petitioner’s argument                             
                    relative to the denial of his right to use                        
                    cost is answered in part by the court in the                      
                    Davis case, supra, wherein it states that a                       
                    net gain realized by a taxpayer from a                            
                    separate and distinct transaction constitutes                     
                    income that may, or may not, be subject to                        
                    tax depending upon whether the Congress has                       
                    allowed deductions which as a matter of                           
                    computation will relieve that income in whole                     
                    or in part from taxation, and by the further                      
                    statement that “net income for any taxable                        
                    period need not necessarily be the same as                        
                    net taxable income for that period, and the                       
                    variation may be to the extent that Congress                      
                    has seen fit either to allow, to limit, or to                     
                    deny deductions within its control as a                           
                    matter of grace.”  (Emphasis supplied.)  The                      
                    facts in this proceeding illustrate the truth                     
                    of the court’s observations.  This petitioner                     
                    as a matter of fact lost money upon the basis                     
                    of his operations over the entire year, and                       
                    if all his losses were deductible he could                        
                    have no statutory net income.  However, in                        
                    the absence of a statutory right to reduce                        
                    other income by losses from stock                                 
                    speculations, and in view of the specific                         
                    limitation of 23(r), petitioner’s computation                     
                    must show a statutory net income subject to                       
                    tax.  * * *                                                       
               The foregoing disposes of all of petitioners’ contentions,             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011