Everhart v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioners installed a sewage disposal system to treat the sewage generated by their shopping center. Held, the system was not "tangible personal property" within sec. 48(a)(1)(A), and therefore did not qualify as "section 38 property" eligible for the investment credit.
1Opinion of the Court
opinion
Irwin, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,856.93 in the income tax of petitioners for the calendar year 1968. The sole issue for our determination is whether a sewage disposal system purchased and installed underground by petitioners qualified as “section 38 property” 1 eligible for the investment credit.2
All of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, are found accordingly.
Petitioners C. C. Everhart and Clara Everhart, husband and wife, resided in Mosheim, Tenn., at the time of the filing of the petition…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Evans v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- Roberts v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
3Cited by26 opinions
- Whiteco Indus. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Scott Paper Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Hospital Corp. of Am. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1997
- La Croix v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.