Columbia Malting Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
In the absence of evidence upon which a reasonable allowance can be predicated, a deduction on account of the obsolescence of tangible assets used in the manufacture of malt is not permitted.
1Opinion of the Court
*1001OPINION.
Trammell:
The question is whether the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction of a reasonable allowance on account of the obsolescence of its tangible assets used in the malt business during 1918 and 1919.
Tangible property acquired for the purpose of manufacturing malt which, because of its peculiar nature, can not be used for any other purpose is obsolete when it is no longer useful for that purpose. Obsolescent is the state or process of becoming obsolete.
The taxpayer’s business was not prohibited by prohibition legislation. Legal uses for its product remained and it continued to supply…
2Cited by11 opinions
- University City v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
- Selig v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1995
- Bruce Selig and Elaine Selig v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1995
- Buffalo Union Furnace Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Columbia Malting Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.