Collingwood v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner, who owned farms for the production of income which had been under cultivation for many years, sought to check and reduce water erosion and loss of top soil by terracing his farms in accordance with approved specifications. Terraces were made by pushing the earth into ridges following the contours of the land. Nothing new was added to the farms.
Read the full summary
Petitioner, who owned farms for the production of income which had been under cultivation for many years, sought to check and reduce water erosion and loss of top soil by terracing his farms in accordance with approved specifications. Terraces were made by pushing the earth into ridges following the contours of the land. Nothing new was added to the farms. The purpose was not to change the use of the land, or to prepare it for use, or for new and additional uses, but was to maintain the productivity of the farms in normal and customary operation. Held, the expenditures for farm terracing were…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Harron, Judge:
The respondent disallowed deduction of the cost of farm terracing in each of the taxable years upon his determination that the expense comes within.section 24 (a) (2), Internal Revenue Code.1 The respondent contends that the farm terracing work in question constituted a permanent improvement. He does not, under his theory, agree that the cost of the farm terracing can be recovered through depreciation.
The petitioner contends that the terracing work was, essentially, for maintenance and conservation of the farms. He denies that the farm terracing work constituted a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Zaninovich v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- RKO Theatres, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
- Amfac, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Amfac, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Collingwood v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.