Stewart Supply Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

Stewart Supply Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

324 F.2d 233, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5943, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1963

Docket28325_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 324 F.2d 233 (Stewart Supply Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stewart Supply Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 324 F.2d 233, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5943, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3773 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

During the summer of 1956 there was a severe wind and rain storm in the vicinity of the taxpayer’s business premises in Niagara Falls, New York. Some months later, in a stretch of cold weather, it was discovered that the front wall of the building was separated from the building and it became necessary to replace the'entire wall. The sole issue before us is whether the cost of replacing the wall was an “ordinary and necessary” business expense, deductible from income pursuant to Section 162(a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, as contended by the taxpayer, or as a capital expenditure to be recovered through periodic deductions for depreciation, as contended by the Commissioner and held by the Tax Court. Cases of this type, in which the taxpayer is denied the deduction as an expense, always involve some hardship; but we are persuaded that the substantial expenditure necessary to make the repairs resulted, at least to an appreciable extent, in an increase in the value of the building and prolonged its life. The Tax Court was not bound to accept at face value the testimony of the taxpayer’s witnesses to the contrary. We are satisfied that the record supports the conclusions of fact and law arrived at by the Tax Court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

During the summer of 1956 there was a severe wind and rain storm in the vicinity of the taxpayer’s business premises in Niagara Falls, New York. Some months later, in a stretch of cold weather, it was discovered that the front wall of the building was separated from the building and it became necessary to replace the'entire wall. The sole issue before us is whether the cost of replacing the wall was an “ordinary and necessary” business expense, deductible from income pursuant to Section 162(a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, as contended by the taxpayer, or as a capital expenditure to be recovered through periodic deductions for depreciation, as contended by the Commissioner and held by the Tax Court. Cases of this type, in which the taxpayer is denied the deduction as an expense, always involve some hardship; but we are persuaded that the substantial expenditure necessary to make the repairs resulted, at least to an appreciable extent, in an increase in the value of the building and prolonged its life. The Tax Court was not bound to accept at face value the testimony of the taxpayer’s witnesses to the contrary. We are satisfied that the record supports the conclusions of fact and law arrived at by the Tax Court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 233, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5943, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-supply-company-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack