Concrete Eng'g Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The president of the petitioner, subsequently to March 1, 1913, without consideration, assigned to the petitioner certain patents, the value of which has been determined for the purpose of computing the annual deduction for exhaustion. 2. Intangible property transferred to a corporation without any consideration therefor may not be included in invested capital as paid-in surplus under the provisions of section 326(a)(3) of the Revenue Act of 1918. 3. Because of…
Read the full summary
1. The president of the petitioner, subsequently to March 1, 1913, without consideration, assigned to the petitioner certain patents, the value of which has been determined for the purpose of computing the annual deduction for exhaustion. 2. Intangible property transferred to a corporation without any consideration therefor may not be included in invested capital as paid-in surplus under the provisions of section 326(a)(3) of the Revenue Act of 1918. 3. Because of abnormality in invested capital due to the exclusion of valuable patents from invested capital, the petitioner is entitled to have…
1Opinion of the Court
*219OPINION.
MoeRis:
A very brief review of the facts set forth hereinabove convinces us that the two patents in question were extremely valuable when acquired by the petitioner. The invention was a proven success from the very beginning of the use thereof by the partnership which the petitioner succeeded. During the two years of the partnership’s existence 1,500,000 square feet of concrete flooring were constructed by the Meyer method at a net profit of approximately $30,000. The petitioner’s business increased from 1,710,344 square feet of concrete floor construction in 1915 to 10,928,954 square…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Concrete Eng'g Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930