Clinton Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A claim for adjustment of depreciation rates based on 1913 value of depreciable property alleged to exceed cost must be supported by convincing evidence of the value claimed and proof of the remaining useful life of the property at such date.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Lansdon :
The respondent has asserted deficiencies in income tax for tbe years 1927, 1928, and 1929 in the respective amounts of $8,583.40, $4,292.82, and $1,341.03. For its canses of action the petitioner alleges (1) that the Commissioner has not used the fair market values of assets that it owned at March 1, 1913, as the basis for computing depreciation thereon; (2) that the rate at which Commissioner computed depreciation on secondhand machinery acquired after March 1, 1913, is inadequate; (3) that it is entitled to deductions as ordinary and necessary expenses for certain…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Ownbey v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Burnet v. Chicago Railway Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cupler v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Stratton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Bressi v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Clinton Cotton Mills, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Cupler v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.