Parker Gravel Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. A gravel pit or deposit is not a "mine" within the meaning of that word as used in section 204(c)(1) of the Revenue Act of 1926, and may not be the subject matter of a deduction for depletion based on discovery value. 2. Deduction allowable for depreciation determined from the record. 3. Miscellaneous expenditures analyzed and held to be part capital, and part expense deductible from income.
1Opinion of the Court
*55OPINION.
Tsammell :
The deficiency involved in this proceeding results from the action of the respondent in disallowing certain deductions claimed by the petitioner in its return as follows: (1) A deduction for depletion of a gravel deposit or pit, based on discovery values, in the amount of $5,124.79; (2) in part, a deduction for depreciation in the amount of $3,367.84; and (3) a deduction for “organization expenses” in the amount of $433.96. The petitioner alleges that the respondent’s action constitutes error. The issue of depletion will be first considered.
The statute applicable here is the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Company v. SoderbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Sult v. A. Hochstetter Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1908
- Marvel v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. MjeldeMontana Supreme Court · 1913
- Hendler v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dunn & Baker v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Grand River Gravel Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Hall v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Parker Gravel Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Troup v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953