Legal Opinion

Benjamin Booth & Co. v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided June 28, 1926No. Docket No. 3400PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Held, on the evidence, that the taxpayer is not entitled to a deduction on account of obsolescence of machinery.

1Opinion of the Court

*249OPINION.

Teammell :

There is no serious dispute between the taxpayer and the Commissioner with respect to the rate of depreciation based upon wear, tear and exhaustion of assets, or the cost or March 1, 1913, value of assets upon which the deduction is based. While the machines do heavy work and are subject to much vibration, the wearing parts are constantly replaced, such replacements being charged to repair and serving to keep the machines in good condition. The *250increased rate claimed by the taxpayer is based principally upon obsolescence. The taxpayer contends that experimentation in…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1941
  2. Benjamin Booth & Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API