Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Loss -- Capital or Ordinary. -- Each of the petitioners sold an abstract plant. One plant, which was retained as surplus, was not used in the trade or business; the other plant was used in the trade or business.
Read the full summary
1. Loss -- Capital or Ordinary. -- Each of the petitioners sold an abstract plant. One plant, which was retained as surplus, was not used in the trade or business; the other plant was used in the trade or business. Held, the loss sustained on the sale of the surplus plant was a capital loss; held, further, the loss sustained on the sale of the other plant was an ordinary loss. 2. Obsolescence. -- Held, abstract plants are subject to obsolescence. 3. Depreciation -- Amortization of a Contract. -- Petitioner Stewart Title Guaranty Company exchanged property for a contract for 5 years of future…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Johnson, Judge:
Petitioners contend that the losses resulting from the sale of the abstract plants are ordinary losses and deductible in full because the abstract plants are excluded from the term “capital assets” by section 117 (a) (1) (B) of the Code. This section provides that property used in a trade or business of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation provided for in section 23 (1) is not a capital asset. Section 23 (1) provides a deduction for “A reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear (including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence)” of property…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Real Estate - Land Title & Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Boston Elevated Ry. CoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1952
- Baton Coal Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1931
- Main & McKinney Bldg. Co., of Houston v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Lemmen v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Seaboard Finance Company, Seaboard Finance Company, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CrossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Cartan v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- Seaboard Finance Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- American Spring & Wire Specialty Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.