Summary
rejecting the inclusion of tax benefit considerations in determining useful life
Summary of this case from Honodel v. C.I.ROpinion
Nos. 22004, 22004-A.
August 29, 1968.
Wm. H. Kinsey (argued), Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey Williamson, Portland, Or., for appellants.
Robert I. Waxman (argued), Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lester Uretz, Chief Counsel, Lee A. Jackson, Wm. A. Friedlander, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, District Judge.
The decision of the Tax Court is reported at 48 T.C. 7 (1967).
The only significant questions raised on this petition are (1) whether the Tax Court's determination as to the useful lives of several properties in issue was clearly erroneous and (2) whether the Tax Court erred in concluding that the Commissioner was not precluded, because of an alleged prior approval, from adjusting the depreciation basis of the same properties. The test to be applied in the determination of useful life is well established. Massey Motors, Inc. v. United States, 364 U.S. 92, 97, 80 S.Ct. 1411, 4 L.Ed.2d 1592 (1960); Treas. Reg. 1.167(a)-1(b). Despite some questionable language in the Tax Court's opinion with regard to this test, we believe that the Tax Court applied the established legal standards and reached a conclusion which is not clearly erroneous. As to the second issue, we agree with the reasoning set forth in the Tax Court's opinion.
Affirmed.