Hardinge v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Hardinge v. Commissioner

17 B.T.A. 41, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2368

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJuly 31, 1929

DocketDocket No. 34862.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 B.T.A. 41 (Hardinge v. Commissioner) 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

Hardinge v. Commissioner, 17 B.T.A. 41, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2368 (bta 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[42]*42OPINION.

Trammell:

The petitioner alleges that the patent had a fair market value of $300,000 on March 1, 1913, and contends that he should be allowed for each of the taxable years here involved of that amount as a deduction for depreciation. The respondent denies that the patent had the value alleged, or that the petitioner is entitled to the deductions contended for.

In support of a value of $300,000, the petitioner offered his own oral testimony as to three offers made about 1912 to purchase the patent. The best of these offers was for an amount of $300,000. We think this testimony is incompetent and insufficient for establishing value. Sharpe v. United States, 191 U. S. 341. While the evidence shows that earnings from the patent for 1913 were $21,000, which amount was greater than the earnings for the preceding year, we are unable from these facts to determine w'hat the value of the patent was on March 1, 1913.

The petitioner having failed to establish the value of the patent on March 1, 1913, it becomes unnecessary to determine the other question involved.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

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

[42]*42OPINION.

Trammell:

The petitioner alleges that the patent had a fair market value of $300,000 on March 1, 1913, and contends that he should be allowed for each of the taxable years here involved of that amount as a deduction for depreciation. The respondent denies that the patent had the value alleged, or that the petitioner is entitled to the deductions contended for.

In support of a value of $300,000, the petitioner offered his own oral testimony as to three offers made about 1912 to purchase the patent. The best of these offers was for an amount of $300,000. We think this testimony is incompetent and insufficient for establishing value. Sharpe v. United States, 191 U. S. 341. While the evidence shows that earnings from the patent for 1913 were $21,000, which amount was greater than the earnings for the preceding year, we are unable from these facts to determine w'hat the value of the patent was on March 1, 1913.

The petitioner having failed to establish the value of the patent on March 1, 1913, it becomes unnecessary to determine the other question involved.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 B.T.A. 41, 1929 BTA LEXIS 2368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardinge-v-commissioner-bta-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack