State Consolidated Oil Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

State Consolidated Oil Co. v. Commissioner

19 B.T.A. 86

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1930

DocketDocket No. 20241

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 B.T.A. 86 (State Consolidated Oil 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

State Consolidated Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 86 (bta 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

[88]*88OPINION.

Sternhagen:

The petitioner abandons its attempt to prove a fair market price or value on March 1, 1913, of the McKittrick property greater than that of $75,000 determined by respondent, and we sustain that determination without discussion.

The respondent has conceded petitioner’s claimed deduction of $351.20 for 1920 and $4,989.52 for 1921 as reasonable allowances for exhaustion, wear and tear of equipment, and the deficiency should in this respect be adjusted accordingly.

As to the disbursements made during the taxable years in drilling under the Dabney lease, we see no sufficient reason at this late date to order their deduction as ordinary and necessary expenses. Petitioner’s accounting method was such that it was at liberty to and did treat them as accounts receivable, showing them on its balance sheet as assets, and in its returns it made no attempt to deduct them. The deduction is first claimed in amended returns and this petition. Even, therefore, if article 223, Regulations 45, were controlling (but see Old Farmers Oil Co., 12 B. T. A. 203), as petitioner seems to contend, it had no such practice as would require the deduction under that article. Petitioner regarded these expenditures as an investment to be returned to it out of the fruits of the Dabney contract. Bespondent adopted this treatment. There is no principle of law clear enough to require us to say that respondent’s determination was in this respect incorrect.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

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

[88]*88OPINION.

Sternhagen:

The petitioner abandons its attempt to prove a fair market price or value on March 1, 1913, of the McKittrick property greater than that of $75,000 determined by respondent, and we sustain that determination without discussion.

The respondent has conceded petitioner’s claimed deduction of $351.20 for 1920 and $4,989.52 for 1921 as reasonable allowances for exhaustion, wear and tear of equipment, and the deficiency should in this respect be adjusted accordingly.

As to the disbursements made during the taxable years in drilling under the Dabney lease, we see no sufficient reason at this late date to order their deduction as ordinary and necessary expenses. Petitioner’s accounting method was such that it was at liberty to and did treat them as accounts receivable, showing them on its balance sheet as assets, and in its returns it made no attempt to deduct them. The deduction is first claimed in amended returns and this petition. Even, therefore, if article 223, Regulations 45, were controlling (but see Old Farmers Oil Co., 12 B. T. A. 203), as petitioner seems to contend, it had no such practice as would require the deduction under that article. Petitioner regarded these expenditures as an investment to be returned to it out of the fruits of the Dabney contract. Bespondent adopted this treatment. There is no principle of law clear enough to require us to say that respondent’s determination was in this respect incorrect.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 B.T.A. 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-consolidated-oil-co-v-commissioner-bta-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack