Appeal of Western Star Milling Co.

Board of Tax Appeals

Appeal of Western Star Milling Co.

5 B.T.A. 109

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 1926

DocketDocket No. 2852

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 B.T.A. 109 (Appeal of Western Star Milling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Western Star Milling Co., 5 B.T.A. 109 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[111]*111opinion.

Lansdon:

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner erroneously increased the taxpayer’s depreciation reserve by applying recognized formulae to the book value of plant assets from the date of organization to the close of the taxable year The only distinction between this appeal and others that we have hitherto decided in favor of taxpayers on substantially similar evidence, is in the comparatively small amount of the. accumulated depreciation reserve. This resulted from the taxpayer’s practice of charging much of the cost of repairs and replacements against such reserve. We are of the opinion, however, that the taxpayer’s books of account fairly reflected the depreciated cost of its plant equipment at June 30, 1920. Appeals of Cleveland Home Brewing Co., 1 B. T. A. 87; Russell Milling Co., 1 B. T. A. 194; Rub-No-More Co., 1 B. T. A. 228; and Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 3 B. T. A. 1045.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[111]*111opinion.

Lansdon:

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner erroneously increased the taxpayer’s depreciation reserve by applying recognized formulae to the book value of plant assets from the date of organization to the close of the taxable year The only distinction between this appeal and others that we have hitherto decided in favor of taxpayers on substantially similar evidence, is in the comparatively small amount of the. accumulated depreciation reserve. This resulted from the taxpayer’s practice of charging much of the cost of repairs and replacements against such reserve. We are of the opinion, however, that the taxpayer’s books of account fairly reflected the depreciated cost of its plant equipment at June 30, 1920. Appeals of Cleveland Home Brewing Co., 1 B. T. A. 87; Russell Milling Co., 1 B. T. A. 194; Rub-No-More Co., 1 B. T. A. 228; and Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 3 B. T. A. 1045.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-western-star-milling-co-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack