Cohen v. CommissionerCohen v. Commissioner
Lead Opinion
OPINION.
The evidence shows that the books of the petitioner were regularly kept on an accrual method of accounting at all times material hereto and that the use of that method clearly reflects his annual income.
The Commissioner argues that the petitioner’s method of accounting and reporting did not clearly reflect his income because the petitioner was not in a sound financial condition and it was unlikely that he would ever be able to pay some of the interest which was accrued on his books. The stipulated facts show that the petitioner was not in the best financial condition but he continued to conduct his business. Small portions of the accrued interest were actually paid and
The rule which emerges from the decisions of this Court is that deductions for accrued interest are proper where it can not be “categorically said at the time these deductions were claimed that the interest would not be paid, even though the course of conduct of the parties indicated that the likelihood of payment of any part of the disallowed portion was extremely doubtful.” D. J. Jorden,
Decision will be entered under Rule 50.