Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Petitioner argued that because the patent was not issued until 1918, the only basis for computing its depreciation was its cost, and, as its cost was nothing, the substantial allowances made by the Board of Tax Appeals for depreciation were unauthorized.
Article 167, Regulations 45 of the Treasury Department, reads as follows: “Art. 167. Depreciation of patent or copyright.— In computing a depreciation allowance in the case of a patent or copyright, the capital sum to be replaced is the cost (not already deducted as current expense) of the patent or copyright…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tyler v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Brown v. DuchesneSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Citizens State Bank of Barstow, Tex. v. VidalCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Nelson Weaver Realty Company, and Nelson Weaver Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1958
- Investment & Securities Co. v. RobbinsDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1943
- Arrowhead Estates, Inc. v. Boston Licensing BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.