Landsberger

Landsberger v. McLaughlin

Good Law
20 F.2d 977·6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6898·6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 6898·1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1301
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 26, 1927No. 17261California495 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action to recover $13,426, paid under protest to cover a deficiency in income tax assessed against plaintiff for 1919, and $1,-154.31 similarly paid for 1920. Plaintiff .was, and had been for many years, a wine and brandy broker, doing business under the name of “Landsberger & Son.” His dealings were with wholesalers only, with whom he negotiated for the purchase of whole cellars. This business was in flourishing condition prior to the time when it became certain that prohibition would go into effect. Since the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138% et seq.) went into effect, plaintiff has ceased to do business with his old clients, and has endeavored to build up a new clientele, to which he sells nonbeverage wines on a commission basis. The returns from the new form of this business are negligible.

In his income tax returns for 1919 and 1920 plaintiff claimed that the good will of his business was worth at least $90,113.90 on March 1, 1913, and that such good will became obsolete because of the national prohibition legislation which went into effect January 16, 1920. The Treasury Department having ruled that the date when it became reasonably certain, for the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.