We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
2.
5 ee,
Lucas v. Alexander, 279 UseSe575 The decided cases do not go so far as to hold
thet such @ loss is not deductible, but merely content themselves
on the ground thet the sorporettiit ean prove no loBS. This is based upon the theory that the difference between the cash surrender value , of the policy and the premiums.paid therefor represents the payment
for the insurance coverage ziven by the insurance conpany.
In Keystone Consolidated Publishing Companys
26 B.1.4-1210, a corporation insured the lives of its officers.
—
Upon their resignation frou the company, the policies were sold to these officers at their cash surrender value. ‘The excess of the premiums pic over the amount received upon the sale or the polities Was Claiuec as 4 deduction frou. income. ihe coerd of Tax appeals,
in denying this contention, stated:
" It is petitioner's contention that the item of $7,123.56 is deductible either as 4 loss incurred in trade or business under section 214 fa) (4) of the Revenue act of 1926, or as @ loss sustained upon sale of property uncerr seetion 204 (a) of the seme «ct. Without passing upon petitioner's right to the deduction upon <ither ground, we sustain res sondent for the reason that petitioner has failed to prove any loss. It is clear that its loss, if eny, wust be measured by the cifference between the cost of the property sold anc the selling price (section, 204 (a), Revenue act of 1926). ‘fetitioner acquired the property which it later sold to the insured stockholders throuch the payment of premiums, but the total premium peid cid not. represent the cost of the capital asset, as petitioner contends. TO so hold would be to cisrggerd the element of insurance protection in the period prior to the sale, the benefit of which accrued to petitioner,
;
en In Standard Brewins COs 6 B.T.A. 980 , we consider=
ead this identica Ssue arising upon s er Tacts (except the. there the policies were surrencered while here they were sold at cash surrencer value; and that decision is determinative of tne case at bar. ve there said:
To the extent that the premiums paid by the petitioner created in it a right to a surréucer value, they constitut-ed a Capital investment. %o the extent they exceeded the
: 5
Yee. Sg PO, Sep el eee ee eT