Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
No allowance can be made for the exhaustion of the cost of a contract granting a perpetual privilege to bottle Coca-Cola.
1Opinion of the Court
*1334OPINION.
Littleton:
Section 234 (a) (7) of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 allows as a deduction a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in the trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence.
It is insisted by petitioner that Coca-Cola contracts of the character as the one owned by it are estimated by persons when purchasing them to produce a return sufficient to restore the capital invested therein within six or seven years, and that the investment of $83,877.02 in the • contract here involved was made with the expectation that such…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Radio Station WBIR, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Indiana Broadcasting CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1965
- Indiana Broadcasting Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Rudie v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.