Seymour Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner

OPINION.

Love:

These proceedings, which were consolidated for hearing and decision, are for the redetermination of the following deficiencies:

[[Image here]]

*1281The petitions allege that the respondent erred (1) in his determination of the rate of depreciation with respect to machinery and equipment for the fiscal'years 1921 and 1922, and with respect to buildings, machinery, and equipment, including patterns and dies, for the fiscal years 1928, 1924, and 1925; (2) in excluding from invested capital for the fiscal year 1921 an alleged “paid-in surplus” in the amount of $43,789.08; (3) in overstating…