B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Good will paid in to petitioner without consideration may not be included in invested capital. Herald Despatch Co.,4 B.T.A. 1096. 2. The evidence is insufficient to establish the March 1, 1913, value of patents and a license under which petitioner manufactured a patented article. 3. Petitioner held not entitled to deductions for amortization of war facilities the original cost of which was not borne by it, the only cost to petitioner, which was paid in 1919, being the…
Read the full summary
1. Good will paid in to petitioner without consideration may not be included in invested capital. Herald Despatch Co.,4 B.T.A. 1096. 2. The evidence is insufficient to establish the March 1, 1913, value of patents and a license under which petitioner manufactured a patented article. 3. Petitioner held not entitled to deductions for amortization of war facilities the original cost of which was not borne by it, the only cost to petitioner, which was paid in 1919, being the residual value for peace-time purposes. Held, further, that the claim for deductions was not timely filed.
1Opinion of the Court
*604OPINION*
AkuNdell :
Wo have no doubt that the individual business of B. F. Sturtevant had a valuable good will at the time of its transfer to petitioner. But where such an intangible asset is acquired, as here conceded, without a payment of stock or other consideration, may all or any part of its value be included in invested capital? The question was fully considered in Herald-Despatch Co., 4 B. T. A. 1096, and the conclusion reached that good will acquired under such circumstances may not be included in invested capital as a paid-in surplus. There has been no departure from this rule.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reinecke v. SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
3Cited by2 opinions
- B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932
- Pierce Oil Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935