Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner

11 B.T.A. 780, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3725

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 1928

DocketDocket No. 10893.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 B.T.A. 780 (Sicilian Asphalt Paving 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

Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 780, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3725 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Littleton :

The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $11,282.74 for 1920 and of $11,709.30 for 1921, and the petitioner filed a petition with the Board contesting the correctness of this determination, claiming that for the years 1920 and 1921 the Commissioner erroneously disallowed as deductions from gross income $12,6.68.93 for 1920 and $8,885.28 for 1921, representing a portion of the depreciation on property claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner assigned certain other errors claimed to have been committed by the Commissioner in disallowing a deduction in 1920 and 1921 o-f certain amounts which it estimated would be the cost of maintaining certain paving-laid by the petitioner over a period of five years and in refusing to allow a deduction in the years 1920 and 1921 of certain amounts claimed to have been retained by the city in connection with certain paving contracts.

At the hearing of the proceeding the petitioner withdrew its claim of error in respect of all of the items except the matter of depreciation of the property in 1920 and 1921, and the Commissioner conceded that his determination of the amount deductible for depreciation of the property in 1920 and 1921 was erroneous. The parties stipulated “that the proper rate of depreciation for this petitioner [781]*781for the years 1920 and 1921 is 10 per cent on ail this property, and that in the deficiency notice from which the appeal is taken, the respondent allowed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent on all items of tangible property except that of buildings o'n which he allowed 4 per cent; that the restoration of the 10 per cent rate with inspect to buildings wiil entitle petitioner to an ádditional allowance for depreciation of $6,000 for each of the years 1920 and 1921;”

The deficiencies should be recomputed by allowing depreciation upon petitioner’s tangible property computed at the rate of 10 percent.

Judgment will he entered on 10 days’ notice, under Bule 50.

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

Littleton :

The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $11,282.74 for 1920 and of $11,709.30 for 1921, and the petitioner filed a petition with the Board contesting the correctness of this determination, claiming that for the years 1920 and 1921 the Commissioner erroneously disallowed as deductions from gross income $12,6.68.93 for 1920 and $8,885.28 for 1921, representing a portion of the depreciation on property claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner assigned certain other errors claimed to have been committed by the Commissioner in disallowing a deduction in 1920 and 1921 o-f certain amounts which it estimated would be the cost of maintaining certain paving-laid by the petitioner over a period of five years and in refusing to allow a deduction in the years 1920 and 1921 of certain amounts claimed to have been retained by the city in connection with certain paving contracts.

At the hearing of the proceeding the petitioner withdrew its claim of error in respect of all of the items except the matter of depreciation of the property in 1920 and 1921, and the Commissioner conceded that his determination of the amount deductible for depreciation of the property in 1920 and 1921 was erroneous. The parties stipulated “that the proper rate of depreciation for this petitioner [781]*781for the years 1920 and 1921 is 10 per cent on ail this property, and that in the deficiency notice from which the appeal is taken, the respondent allowed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent on all items of tangible property except that of buildings o'n which he allowed 4 per cent; that the restoration of the 10 per cent rate with inspect to buildings wiil entitle petitioner to an ádditional allowance for depreciation of $6,000 for each of the years 1920 and 1921;”

The deficiencies should be recomputed by allowing depreciation upon petitioner’s tangible property computed at the rate of 10 percent.

Judgment will he entered on 10 days’ notice, under Bule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 B.T.A. 780, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sicilian-asphalt-paving-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack