United States v. Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon Corporation

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon Corporation

310 F.2d 877, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6028, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3498

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1962

Docket17693_1

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 310 F.2d 877 (United States v. Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon Corporation, 310 F.2d 877, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6028, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3498 (9th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case involves federal income taxes for the years 1948 to 1953, inclusive. A deficiency for each tax year was assessed by the Commissioner. These deficiencies the taxpayer has paid. The taxpayer duly applied for a refund, which the Commissioner denied. The taxpayer then brought suit in the court below for the recovery of the amounts alleged to have been overpaid. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff. D.C. 189 F.Supp. 290.

The case turns on the depreciation allowable on a utility power plant. All the statute says is that, in computing net income, there shall be allowed as a deduction “[a] reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear (including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence)— (1) of property used in the trade or business. * * * ” Int.Rev.Code of 1939, § 23, as amended. The district court made the factual finding, which we cannot conclude to be “clearly erroneous,” that the “Annual Accrual of allowable depreciation, as computed by PGE [the taxpayer] under its straight-line unit summation method of depreciation using the useful lives of its depreciable property as established by the Utilities Commissioner’s order and subsequent usage and experience thereunder, is factual, realistic and administratively practical, and therefore reasonable and in compliance with tax law and regulation. Further, that the Annual Accrual of depreciation as developed by the Commissioner on his straight-line average life method is unreasonable in light of PGE’s knowledge and experience as to the useful lives of its depreciable properties, and to require PGE to substitute his method for its, is arbitrary.” 189 F.Supp. at 303-304.

*878 We are content to rely upon the careful findings of fact and conclusions of law of District Judge East on the points at issue, with which we are in entire agreement.

A judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case involves federal income taxes for the years 1948 to 1953, inclusive. A deficiency for each tax year was assessed by the Commissioner. These deficiencies the taxpayer has paid. The taxpayer duly applied for a refund, which the Commissioner denied. The taxpayer then brought suit in the court below for the recovery of the amounts alleged to have been overpaid. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff. D.C. 189 F.Supp. 290.

The case turns on the depreciation allowable on a utility power plant. All the statute says is that, in computing net income, there shall be allowed as a deduction “[a] reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear (including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence)— (1) of property used in the trade or business. * * * ” Int.Rev.Code of 1939, § 23, as amended. The district court made the factual finding, which we cannot conclude to be “clearly erroneous,” that the “Annual Accrual of allowable depreciation, as computed by PGE [the taxpayer] under its straight-line unit summation method of depreciation using the useful lives of its depreciable property as established by the Utilities Commissioner’s order and subsequent usage and experience thereunder, is factual, realistic and administratively practical, and therefore reasonable and in compliance with tax law and regulation. Further, that the Annual Accrual of depreciation as developed by the Commissioner on his straight-line average life method is unreasonable in light of PGE’s knowledge and experience as to the useful lives of its depreciable properties, and to require PGE to substitute his method for its, is arbitrary.” 189 F.Supp. at 303-304.

*878 We are content to rely upon the careful findings of fact and conclusions of law of District Judge East on the points at issue, with which we are in entire agreement.

A judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.2d 877, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6028, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-portland-general-electric-company-an-oregon-corporation-ca9-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack