Stillwater Milling Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Stillwater Milling Co. v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 280, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2877

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 1926

DocketDocket No. 5687.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 B.T.A. 280 (Stillwater Milling 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

Stillwater Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 280, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2877 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[281]*281OPINION.

Gbeen:

Of the total amount expended by the petitioner in remodeling its plant for the purpose of manufacturing war-time flour, the Commissioner has allowed, as a deduction in 1918, $4,058.65. The petitioner contends that the remainder, less $118.61 received from the sale of lumber and other small items, should be allowed as a deduction in 1919. It appears, however, that when the mill was remodeled in 1918, certain machinery was purchased, some new and some second-hand, and that this machinery was continued in use by the taxpayer after the mill was restored in 1919 to its prewar condition. The cost of this machinery does not appear in the record, and, except for the fact that the major portion of the amount expended in 1918 was due to labor, we have no information as to the proportionate amount representing the cost of the machinery, and we are not in position to say that the petitioner has not been allowed as a deduction the full amount to which it is entitled under the law.

From the record it appears that the petitioner kept its accounts covering expenditures in a rather irregular manner by posting improvements, replacements and repairs in one account until the end of the year, at which time the amounts expended for repairs were segregated from the capital expenditures. At that time the petitioner’s bookkeeper and president checked each item and listed as repairs only such amounts as were expended for the purpose of keeping the plant in running condition. The evidence convinces us that the petitioner expended the sum of $4,515.81 in making repairs in the year 1920, and is entitled to a deduction of that amount.

With reference to the taxes for 1918 prorated in determining the petitioner’s invested capital for 1919, the Commissioner has admitted that the proper amount is $290.40, instead of $2,204.04, as used in his computation.

Judgment will be entered on 15 days' notice, u/nder Rule 50.

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

[281]*281OPINION.

Gbeen:

Of the total amount expended by the petitioner in remodeling its plant for the purpose of manufacturing war-time flour, the Commissioner has allowed, as a deduction in 1918, $4,058.65. The petitioner contends that the remainder, less $118.61 received from the sale of lumber and other small items, should be allowed as a deduction in 1919. It appears, however, that when the mill was remodeled in 1918, certain machinery was purchased, some new and some second-hand, and that this machinery was continued in use by the taxpayer after the mill was restored in 1919 to its prewar condition. The cost of this machinery does not appear in the record, and, except for the fact that the major portion of the amount expended in 1918 was due to labor, we have no information as to the proportionate amount representing the cost of the machinery, and we are not in position to say that the petitioner has not been allowed as a deduction the full amount to which it is entitled under the law.

From the record it appears that the petitioner kept its accounts covering expenditures in a rather irregular manner by posting improvements, replacements and repairs in one account until the end of the year, at which time the amounts expended for repairs were segregated from the capital expenditures. At that time the petitioner’s bookkeeper and president checked each item and listed as repairs only such amounts as were expended for the purpose of keeping the plant in running condition. The evidence convinces us that the petitioner expended the sum of $4,515.81 in making repairs in the year 1920, and is entitled to a deduction of that amount.

With reference to the taxes for 1918 prorated in determining the petitioner’s invested capital for 1919, the Commissioner has admitted that the proper amount is $290.40, instead of $2,204.04, as used in his computation.

Judgment will be entered on 15 days' notice, u/nder Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 280, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillwater-milling-co-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack