Domhoff & Joyce Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 11 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5718.,5718. |
| Citation | 50 F.2d 893 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
| Parties | DOMHOFF & JOYCE CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
John Weld Peck, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Frank Brandon, of Lebanon, Ohio, and Peck, Shaffer & Williams, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for petitioner.
J. P. Jackson, of Washington, D. C. (G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, C. M. Charest, and Frank M. Thompson, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
Petition to review a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. The case involves income and profit taxes for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1920, in the sum of $92,619.24. The question is whether petitioner was entitled to charge off a claim against the Hamilton Furnace Company in the sum of $174,565.33. The facts were covered by stipulation. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction, and the Board sustained him.
Petitioner, as agent of the Citizens' Gas Company, herein called the gas company, sold the Hamilton Furnace Company, herein called the furnace company, a quantity of coke. In April and May, 1920, the gas company delivered a portion of the coke in the aggregate value of $174,565.33. The furnace company refused to pay upon the ground that the gas company had breached the contract. Petitioner was not responsible for the fulfillment of the contract, but under its agreement with the gas company it paid the gas company for the coke shipped without regard to whether it had actually collected from the furnace company. Under this arrangement petitioner paid the gas company the said sum of $174,565.33, and, the furnace company having failed to pay petitioner, petitioner stopped further shipments and instituted suit in a court of common pleas of Ohio against the furnace company for the recovery of the aforesaid sum. Petitioner was defeated both in the court of common pleas and the Court of Appeals, but upon a writ of error to the Supreme Court the judgments of both lower courts were reversed and the cause remanded to the court of common pleas. 108 Ohio St. 25, 140 N. E. 485. In the meantime the furnace company had brought suit against the gas company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for damages for a breach of the contract. These suits were pending until October, 1928.
On December 2, 1920, petitioner charged this account off upon the recommendation of its president, who reported to petitioner's directors that the claim was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milton Bradley Co. v. United States
...7 Cir., 1940, 112 F.2d 333; Harmount v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1932, 58 F.2d 118; Domhoff & Joyce Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1931, 50 F.2d 893. One of the underlying conditions of validity is an unconditional obligation of the debtor to pay the credi......
-
Hobbs v. Commissioner, Docket No. 92080.
...Co. Dec. 1256, 3 B. T. A. 814, 816 (1926). Accord, Domhoff & Joyce Co. Dec. 5524, 17 B. T. A. 1015 (1929), affd. 1931 CCH ¶ 9436 50 F. 2d 893 (C. A. 6, 1931). Respondent contends that the finding of the state court that petitioner had voluntarily renounced the debt is conclusive upon us. He......