Panyard Machine & Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
Opinion of the Court
Two questions are presented — first, the interpretation of the payment of $>25,000 under the agreements of April 14, 1923, and May 2, 1923, and, second, the allowability of a deduction of a reserve for bad debts.
By interpretive reference to the contracts involved, it appears that petitioner acquired thereby all of the partnership assets, tangible and intangible. For the tangibles it agreed to pay the inventory cost less discounts; for the intangibles it paid $25,000.- Petitioner’s sole witness said the additional sum was a bonus “ to get them out of the way.” It appears to be more than that. It was for the acquisition of whatever in addition to tangibles the partnership possessed. Among these was the exclusive contract right originally granted to
The testimony in support of the reserve for bad accounts was vague and uncertain. So far as figures appeared, they were the barest approximations and estimates. There is no specific evidence of the efforts, if any were made, to collect or of the worth of the customers. A careful study of the evidence fails to produce a conviction either as to the fact of worthlessness of the several accounts or of the reasonableness of the amount set up as a reserve. A reserve for bad debts can not serve to screen the failure to determine the actual worthlessness of the debts or to- establish with fair precision the correctness of the amount of the reserve.
Decision will he entered for the respondent.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.