Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

125 F.2d 150, 28 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 925, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4335

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1942

Docket8809, 8810

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 125 F.2d 150 (Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 125 F.2d 150, 28 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 925, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4335 (6th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases determining deficiencies in income tax for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, came on to be heard upon the records, briefs, and arguments of counsel; and it appearing that petitioner Katharine H. Perkins received two parcels of real property as gifts and that such parcels had been used by the donors for purposes of residence and pleasure, and that since acquisition thereof by the petitioner Katharine H. Perkins both parcels have been operated for profit; and that petitioners have claimed depreciation upon such property under Sections 113(a) and 114(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 113(a), 114(a), which provide that the basis “shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the donor”; and the court considering that the Board of Tax Appeals correctly decided that where non-business property is converted to a business use, the basis of depreciation is fair market value on the date of conversion (Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582, 586, 587, 48 S.Ct. 326, 72 L.Ed. 714) ; and no reversible error with respect to any other issues appearing in the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals:

It is ordered that the decisions be and they hereby are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases determining deficiencies in income tax for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, came on to be heard upon the records, briefs, and arguments of counsel; and it appearing that petitioner Katharine H. Perkins received two parcels of real property as gifts and that such parcels had been used by the donors for purposes of residence and pleasure, and that since acquisition thereof by the petitioner Katharine H. Perkins both parcels have been operated for profit; and that petitioners have claimed depreciation upon such property under Sections 113(a) and 114(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 113(a), 114(a), which provide that the basis “shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the donor”; and the court considering that the Board of Tax Appeals correctly decided that where non-business property is converted to a business use, the basis of depreciation is fair market value on the date of conversion (Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582, 586, 587, 48 S.Ct. 326, 72 L.Ed. 714) ; and no reversible error with respect to any other issues appearing in the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals:

It is ordered that the decisions be and they hereby are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F.2d 150, 28 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 925, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack