Louis Visintainer and Lottie Visintainer v. United States

301 F.2d 312, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1324, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedApril 2, 1962
Docket6850_1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 F.2d 312 (Louis Visintainer and Lottie Visintainer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louis Visintainer and Lottie Visintainer v. United States, 301 F.2d 312, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1324, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507 (10th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellants’ claim to recover allegedly overstated income taxes assessed and collected for the fiscal years ending October 31, 1946 through 1950. The disputed tax liability arose over the valuation of sheep which appellant-taxpayers had on hand on November 1, 1945. Prior to that date, taxpayers had followed an accrual method of accounting wherein they inventoried their purchased and raised animals on a “unit-livestock-price” basis and deducted the difference between their “book-value” and the “cost-price” in the year of purchase. Subsequent to November 1, 1945, the government required taxpayers to value all sheep purchased at “cost” and to include them in inventory, or, in the alternative, to treat them as a capital asset subject to depreciation. Taxpayers elected to depreciate the animals purchased after November 1, 1945, but the animals on hand on that date were left in inventory and their value was not adjusted in computing taxpayers’ past tax liability. Taxpayers seek an adjustment which would allow for prior depreciation of the ani *313 mals in the opening inventory and base their claim for over-statement and overpayment of taxes on the refusal by the government to allow them to deduct the prior depreciation on those animals.

We concur entirely with the sound reasoning and conclusion in the trial court’s reported decision and adopt it as the opinion of this Court. Visintainer v. Allan (D.Colo.), 191 F.Supp. 425.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 F.2d 312, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1324, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-visintainer-and-lottie-visintainer-v-united-states-ca10-1962.