Oliver Finnie Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Oliver Finnie Co. v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 134, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2540

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1925

DocketDocket No. 757.

StatusPublished

This text of 2 B.T.A. 134 (Oliver Finnie Co. 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

Oliver Finnie Co. v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 134, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2540 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[136]*136OPINION.

Morris:

The contributions claimed by the taxpayer as deductible are not.ordinary and necessary expenses paid in carrying on the business, within the meaning of section 234 (a) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1918. Appeal of Woolf & Reynolds, Inc., 1 B. T. A. 1092; Appeal of The Thomas Shoe Co., 1 B. T. A. 124.

The taxpayer admits that 2per cent is a reasonable depreciation rate on the building, but claims a composite rate of 3 per cent on “ building assets ” on a March 1,1913, value of $261,101.92. No competent evidence was introduced to sustain that value or to show their useful life. As the evidence was also insufficient as to the value and useful life of the other assets upon which additional depreciation is claimed, the values and depreciation rates used by the Commissioner must be approved.

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

[136]*136OPINION.

Morris:

The contributions claimed by the taxpayer as deductible are not.ordinary and necessary expenses paid in carrying on the business, within the meaning of section 234 (a) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1918. Appeal of Woolf & Reynolds, Inc., 1 B. T. A. 1092; Appeal of The Thomas Shoe Co., 1 B. T. A. 124.

The taxpayer admits that 2per cent is a reasonable depreciation rate on the building, but claims a composite rate of 3 per cent on “ building assets ” on a March 1,1913, value of $261,101.92. No competent evidence was introduced to sustain that value or to show their useful life. As the evidence was also insufficient as to the value and useful life of the other assets upon which additional depreciation is claimed, the values and depreciation rates used by the Commissioner must be approved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 B.T.A. 134, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-finnie-co-v-commissioner-bta-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack