Otis Steel Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Depreciation rates based on a physical examination of the assets and consideration of the various factors, such as the extent of operations, effect of repairs, etc., indicative of the amount of wear and tear during the period involved, more accurately represent depreciation sustained than do rates computed by a straightline method, for the purpose of determining allowable depreciation deductions as well as adjustments of invested capital on account of depreciation…
Read the full summary
1. Depreciation rates based on a physical examination of the assets and consideration of the various factors, such as the extent of operations, effect of repairs, etc., indicative of the amount of wear and tear during the period involved, more accurately represent depreciation sustained than do rates computed by a straightline method, for the purpose of determining allowable depreciation deductions as well as adjustments of invested capital on account of depreciation sustained in prior years. 2. Good will value of a business purchased determined, for invested capital purposes, by capitalizing…
1Opinion of the Court
*363OPINION.
Milliken :
Two of the three errors alleged by the petitioner relate to depreciation. The Commissioner increased depreciation for the years prior to 1918 and decreased it for the year 1918.
The depreciation written off on the books of petitioner, for the years 1912 to 1918, inclusive, results from an actual physical examination and inspection of its plant, machinery and equipment, made by the official in charge of production and one who, for over thirty years, had been in active touch with the business. He took into consideration the actual use and extent of operations of the plant, the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- von Au v. MagenheimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- In re the Appraisal of the Estate of BallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- New York Telephone Co. v. PrendergastDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1924
- von Au v. MagenheimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Corning Glass Works v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Otis Steel Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927
- Schahet v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- U. S. Industrial Alcohol Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940