Marigold Garden Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Where the usefulness of business property is lost to a taxpayer through the operation of the prohibition law, and the property is neither abandoned nor sold but is placed in storage, the cost thereof is not deductible as a loss. 2. Earned surplus may not be reduced by the difference between the depreciation reserve shown on taxpayer's books and the amount of accumulated depreciation for prior years computed at a fixed percentage on a straight-line basis, where it is not…
Read the full summary
1. Where the usefulness of business property is lost to a taxpayer through the operation of the prohibition law, and the property is neither abandoned nor sold but is placed in storage, the cost thereof is not deductible as a loss. 2. Earned surplus may not be reduced by the difference between the depreciation reserve shown on taxpayer's books and the amount of accumulated depreciation for prior years computed at a fixed percentage on a straight-line basis, where it is not shown that the books do not reflect depreciation actually sustained or that the property had a value or was in a…
1Opinion of the Court
MARIGOLD GARDEN CO. AND RANDOLPH HOTEL CO., PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Marigold Garden Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 1580.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
6 B.T.A. 368; 1927 BTA LEXIS 3522;
March 2, 1927, Promulgated
1. Where the usefulness of business property is lost to a taxpayer through the operation of the prohibition law, and the property is neither abandoned nor sold but is placed in storage, the cost thereof is not deductible as a loss.
2. Earned surplus may not be reduced by the difference between the depreciation reserve shown on taxpayer's books and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Marigold Garden Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927