Burnet v. National Industrial Alcohol Co.

Supreme Court

Burnet v. National Industrial Alcohol Co.

282 U.S. 646, 51 S. Ct. 265, 75 L. Ed. 592, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 32, 1 C.B. 405, 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 981, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 676

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 24, 1931·No. 109·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies in respondent’s income and profits taxes for fiscal years ending May 31, 1919, and 1920. The taxpayer claimed allowances for obsolescence, Resulting from prohibition legislation, of a part of a build *647 ing. It was denied. 7 B. T. A. 1241. The Court, of Appeals reversed. 38 F. (2d) 718.

The taxpayer, a Louisiana corporation organized in 1911, was engaged in making and selling beer. November 3, 1919, it abandoned that business and commenced the manufacture of near beer which it continued until 1923. For the manufacture of beer the taxpayer had a brewery building and a cellar building having three floors. After prohibition the brewery building and one floor of the cellar building were used in the production of near beer. Two floors of the cellar building and cértain steel and wooden vats thereon formerly used for aging beer were not needed and their use was discontinued on November 3, 1919. The Board found that the vats had no salvage value and held their depreciated cost deductible as obsolescence over the period from December 18, 1917, the date of the submission of the Eighteenth Amendment, to January 16, 1920, the date that prohibition took effect. But it denied any allowance for obsolescence of the two floors on the ground that, while the taxpayer ceased to use them, .there-was nothing-in the record to indicate that the structure was obsolete or becoming so. The Court of Appeals held the evidence ample to support the taxpayer’s contention that after abandonment the two floors possessed no residual or salvage value. ■ The Government has raised here only the question whether under the Revenue Act of 1918; § -234 (a) (4) or (a) (7) a deduction may be allowed for. loss or obsolescence of tangible property caused by prohibition legislation, and concedes that it is not in position to contend that the evidence was not sufficient to establish'obsolescence of the two floors.

The . Government relies on. Clarke v. Haberle Brewing Co., 280. U. S. 384, and Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U. S. 387. But we have held in' the Gambrinus case just decided that under § 234 (a) (7) a brewing company is *648 ..entitled to allowance for obsolescence of its building that was caused by the imminence and taking effect of prohibition. That case rules this one.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies in respondent’s income and profits taxes for fiscal years ending May 31, 1919, and 1920. The taxpayer claimed allowances for obsolescence, Resulting from prohibition legislation, of a part of a build *647 ing. It was denied. 7 B. T. A. 1241. The Court, of Appeals reversed. 38 F. (2d) 718.

The taxpayer, a Louisiana corporation organized in 1911, was engaged in making and selling beer. November 3, 1919, it abandoned that business and commenced the manufacture of near beer which it continued until 1923. For the manufacture of beer the taxpayer had a brewery building and a cellar building having three floors. After prohibition the brewery building and one floor of the cellar building were used in the production of near beer. Two floors of the cellar building and cértain steel and wooden vats thereon formerly used for aging beer were not needed and their use was discontinued on November 3, 1919. The Board found that the vats had no salvage value and held their depreciated cost deductible as obsolescence over the period from December 18, 1917, the date of the submission of the Eighteenth Amendment, to January 16, 1920, the date that prohibition took effect. But it denied any allowance for obsolescence of the two floors on the ground that, while the taxpayer ceased to use them, .there-was nothing-in the record to indicate that the structure was obsolete or becoming so. The Court of Appeals held the evidence ample to support the taxpayer’s contention that after abandonment the two floors possessed no residual or salvage value. ■ The Government has raised here only the question whether under the Revenue Act of 1918; § -234 (a) (4) or (a) (7) a deduction may be allowed for. loss or obsolescence of tangible property caused by prohibition legislation, and concedes that it is not in position to contend that the evidence was not sufficient to establish'obsolescence of the two floors.

The . Government relies on. Clarke v. Haberle Brewing Co., 280. U. S. 384, and Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U. S. 387. But we have held in' the Gambrinus case just decided that under § 234 (a) (7) a brewing company is *648 ..entitled to allowance for obsolescence of its building that was caused by the imminence and taking effect of prohibition. That case rules this one.

Judgment affirmed.

Burnet v. National Industrial Alcohol Co., 282 U.S. 646, 51 S. Ct. 265, 75 L. Ed. 592, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 32, 1 C.B. 405, 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 981, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 676 (1931).

Pincite

282 U.S. 646 (Burnet v. National Industrial Alcohol Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related