Emi North America Holdings, Inc., Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. And Capitol Records, Inc. v. United States

675 F.2d 1068, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5004, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19736
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 1982
Docket81-5655
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 675 F.2d 1068 (Emi North America Holdings, Inc., Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. And Capitol Records, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Emi North America Holdings, Inc., Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. And Capitol Records, Inc. v. United States, 675 F.2d 1068, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5004, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19736 (9th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After exhausting their administrative appeals, the appellees instituted suit in the District Court for refund of certain federal income taxes. Their claims were based on the contention that capital expenditures incurred in producing master sound tapes qualify for the investment tax credit pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 38, 46-48 (26 U.S.C. §§ 38, 46 — 48). The Government resisted the claims, primarily relying upon Treas.Reg. § 1.48-l(f). The District Court rendered summary judgment for the appellees, and the Government appeals.

The disposition of this appeal is squarely controlled by long-established precedent. Bing Crosby Productions, Inc. v. United States, 588 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1979); Walt Disney Productions v. United States, 549 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1976); Walt Disney Productions v. United States, 480 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 934, 94 S.Ct. 1451, 39 L.Ed.2d 493 (1974). Because master prints of movies and master sound tapes are functionally identical, no principled distinction can be drawn between the authorities cited and the present controversy. See also, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1977).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. This court’s judgment shall issue forthwith, and no Petition for Rehearing will be entertained. See Rule 2 Fed.R. App.P.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner
108 T.C. No. 18 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner
108 T.C. No. 18 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
Comshare, Inc. v. United States
27 F.3d 1142 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
Morrissey v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 646 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Ronnen v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 F.2d 1068, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5004, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emi-north-america-holdings-inc-capitol-industries-emi-inc-and-capitol-ca9-1982.