Ostenberg v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The basis for computing allowances for the depletion of certain mineral claims determined. 2. The petitioner, Ostenberg, held, to have been regularly engaged in a trade or business during the years 1921 to 1923, inclusive, within the meaning of section 204 of the Revenue Act of 1921, and to be entitled to the benefits of that section.
1Opinion of the Court
*743OPINION.
MaRquette:
The first question by which we are confronted in this proceeding, is what is the proper basis for computing the allowances to which Ostenberg and Eeinbold were entitled for depletion of their respective interests in the mineral claim known as Jesse Lake? The respondent concedes that Jesse Lake had a total recoverable tonnage of 106,110 tons of dry salts on March 20, 1915, and the evidence shows that it had a recoverable tonnage of 78,119 tons on August 15, 1917. Also, it appears to be not disputed that Ostenberg and Eeinbold each owned a one-ninth interest in Jesse Lake. It…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- The Parker Mills v. . the Commissioners of TaxesNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Mining Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Noyes v. MantleSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Piggly Wiggly Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Ostenberg v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Piggly Wiggly Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Valley Tractor & Equipment Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940