Lomita Gasoline Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
In the absence of evidence that the value of wet gas at the mouth of the well purchased under casinghead gasoline contracts was in excess of the royalties paid therefor it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to any deduction from gross income representing an allowance for depletion.
1Opinion of the Court
*388OPINION.
Smith:
The only question presented by these proceedings is whether the petitioner is entitled to deduct from, gross income of each or any of the years in question an allowance for depletion of properties, and, if so, the amount thereof. The respondent has made no allowances for depletion and in those returns where the petitioner claimed a deduction representing an allowance for depletion the respondent has disallowed such deduction. The basis of the respondent’s action was that the petitioner had no depletable interest in the properties. On brief he contends that if the petitioner…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Signal Gasoline Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bankline Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- Bankline Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Lomita Gasoline Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935