Laster v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The petitioners entered into contracts for the drilling of wells under the terms of which the contractor agreed to drill the hole and furnish specified material and equipment and petitioners were in no case to furnish more than water, fuel, tanks, and flow lines and swab the well in and supervise the drilling of the sand area and the running of the casing.
Read the full summary
1. The petitioners entered into contracts for the drilling of wells under the terms of which the contractor agreed to drill the hole and furnish specified material and equipment and petitioners were in no case to furnish more than water, fuel, tanks, and flow lines and swab the well in and supervise the drilling of the sand area and the running of the casing. Held, following Retsal Drilling Co.,42 B.T.A. 1057, that no part of the amounts paid to the drilling contractors is deductible as intangible drilling and development costs. 2. The petitioners agreed to pay a lump sum for the…
1Opinion of the Court
E. C. LASTER, AND MRS. E. C. LASTER, PETITIONERS, ET AL., 1v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Laster v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 96550, 97442, 97713, 97714, 97716, 100340, 100341.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
43 B.T.A. 159; 1940 BTA LEXIS 838;
December 27, 1940, Promulgated
1. The petitioners entered into contracts for the drilling of wells under the terms of which the contractor agreed to drill the hole and furnish specified material and equipment and petitioners were in no case to furnish more than water, fuel, tanks, and flow lines and swab the well in and supervise the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thomas v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Laster v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940
- Retsal Drilling Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940