Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The evidence in this appeal is not sufficient to enable the Board to determine the value of the patents for invested capital and depreciation purposes.
1Opinion of the Court
*986OPINION.
Littleton:
The taxpayer contends that its earnings are attributable solely to certain patents owned by it and that it should be permitted to determine a value therefor as of March 1, 1913, by averaging its earnings for the five years immediately preceding the year 1913, and capitalizing the resultant on a 10 per cent basis; depreciating the value so determined over the period from March 1, 1913, to April 6, 1926, the date the patent of April 6, 1909, will expire. In its petition the taxpayer also raised the issue that the Commissioner erred in limiting the amount at which the patents…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Transit Development Co. v. Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
- Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co. v. Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1915
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925
- Leggett & Platt Spring Bed Mfg. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Union Paper Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927