Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A trade-mark is not such property as is susceptible to exhaustion by the passage of time, nor wear and tear by use in the business, and respondent's action in disallowing deductions for "depreciation" or trade-marks is approved.
1Opinion of the Court
*328OPINION.
TRámmell :
In its returns petitioner deducted from gross income on account of exhaustion of its trade-niarks, and now contends it is entitled to deduct each year, an aliquot part of the total cost of the trade-marks. Respondent disallowed the deductions claimed, and asserts that trade-marks are not subject to exhaustion.
The statute (section 23 (k), Revenue Act of 1928) provides that in ‘computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions, among other things, “A reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and *329tear of property used in the trade or business, including a reasonable…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Renziehausen v. LucasSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Manhattan Brewing Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- La Croix v. MayDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States Mineral Products Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- United States Mineral Prods. Co. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- Morris Plan Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Rust-Oleum Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.