Carolina Light & Power Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*143OPINION.
Seawell:
The petitioner, in 1905, drilled a well on its land at Aiken, S. C., at a cost of $5,396.99. The sole purpose in drilling the well was to obtain water in sufficient quantity to operate an ice plant. The well proved to be a failure, was capped in the same year, and the ice plant project was then abandoned. The petitioner contends that the cost of drilling the well should be added to $2,500, the original cost of the land, in order to ascertain the profit or loss (under section 204 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1926) realized when the land was sold. The drilling of the well should…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- B. P. Jones & Co. v. CashCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Peterson v. RichmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1893
- Faddell v. TaylorTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922