Columbia Malting Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
In the absence of evidence upon which a reasonable allowance can be predicated, a deduction on account of the obsolescence of tangible assets used in the manufacture of malt is not permitted.
1Opinion of the Court
Appeal of COLUMBIA MALTING CO.
Columbia Malting Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 449.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1 B.T.A. 999; 1925 BTA LEXIS 2720;
April 13, 1925, decided Submitted February 24, 1925.
In the absence of evidence upon which a reasonable allowance can be predicated, a deduction on account of the obsolescence of tangible assets used in the manufacture of malt is not permitted.
James A. Taylor and Worth E. Caylor, Esqs., for the taxpayer.
John D. Foley, Esq., for the Commissioner.
TRAMMELL
Before JAMES, STERNHAGEN, TRAMMELL, and TRUSSELL.
This appeal involves income and profits taxes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Columbia Malting Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925