Legal Opinion

Amfac, Inc. v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided May 23, 1978No. Docket No. 7236-75Published

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

  1. A. Duda & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  2. Behring v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
  3. Collingwood v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
  4. Amfac, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
  5. Estate of Straughn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API