Amfac, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Puna expended certain sums in priming three fields for the cultivation of sugar cane. Held, such amounts are not deductible under sec. 175 as expenditures incurred for the purpose of soil or water conservation.
1Opinion of the Court
Amfac, Inc., et al., 1 Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Amfac, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 7236-75
United States Tax Court
70 T.C. 305; 1978 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 115;
May 23, 1978, Filed
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Puna expended certain sums in priming three fields for the cultivation of sugar cane. Held, such amounts are not deductible under sec. 175 as expenditures incurred for the purpose of soil or water conservation.
Richard L. Griffith, for the petitioner.
Vernon R. Balmes, for the respondent.
Sterrett, Judge.
STERRETT
Respondent, on May 16, 1975, issued…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- A. Duda & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Behring v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Collingwood v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Amfac, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Estate of Straughn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.