Casey v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Adjusted basis of partners' interest in partnership real property determined. 2. Basis of partnership land to partnership determined. 3. Remaining useful life and salvage value of a hotel determined. 4. Held, the determination by respondent of a new remaining useful life and salvage value did not give petitioners the right to retroactively change their method of computing depreciation where consent of respondent was not obtained or arbitrarily withheld.
1Opinion of the Court
FisheR, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ income tax as follows:
[[Image here]]
Certain issues have been conceded by each of the parties, leaving for our decision the following:(1) Determination of the adjusted bases of partners’ interest in partnership real property.(2) Determination of the bases to the partnership of its land.(3) Determination of the useful life and estimated salvage value of a hotel.(4) Determination, of whether some of the petitioners herein may retroactively change their method of computing depreciation on a hotel from the straight line method to a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Crane v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Brown v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Massey Motors, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Bayley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Robert C. Hoffman v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by130 opinions
- Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Capitol Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- ESTATE OF DAVIS v. COMMISSIONERUnited States Tax Court · 1998
- Dielectric Materials Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Mitchell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
125 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.