Court Opinion

ID: 9700941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:54:18.939139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:16.227784
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
Respondent Commission argues in this case that the statutory language of § 204(a)(3)(B)(4)(iv) of the Rental Accommodations Act of 1975 is clear and unambiguous. That statute provided in pertinent part:
(iv) depreciation expenses (computed on a straight line basis) of no more than two percent of the assessed market value of the housing accommodation may be deducted in any one year as a depreciation expense, unless and to only the extent that any additional amounts are approved by the Rent Administrator pursuant to subsection (c) of section [205] of this act;
Interpretation of this supposedly clear language led the Commission to conclude that a “depreciation expense” should become a “depreciation allowance,” reasoning in a footnote to its decision that
The City Council adopted a policy that apparently trades off the arbitrary two percent for the inclusion of land value in the base from which the “expense” is calculated. Since the value of land is included, depreciation “expense” is actually a misnomer and the Commission prefers to speak of an “allowance” of two percent of the total assessed value. Note, however, that depreciation in excess of two percent as allowed under Section 12.-10 of the Regulations, when documented by showing compliance with Internal Revenue guidelines, does not include depreciation allowance on the land.
Additionally, and inconsistently, the Commission argues on appeal that it is unclear why the parenthetical phrase “(computed on a straight line basis)” was included in the statute;1 hence, that language should be discounted in interpreting the statute.
In my judgment, when the statute speaks of depreciation expenses it speaks in the *790traditional sense of that language; namely, that to the extent a property has not been fully depreciated, a deduction for depreciation [in this case of not more than 2% of the assessed market value] may be taken. Moreover, depreciation computed on a straight-line basis is a well recognized concept in other areas of the law, and the parties agree on its meaning. Hence, under our standard of review, e. g., Legislative Study Club, Inc. v. D. G. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 359 A.2d 153, 155 (1976); Taylor v. D. C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 230, 232 (1973), I would hold that the Commission’s decision is inconsistent with the statute and reverse.

. The phrase was added after the Mayor had vetoed the first rental accommodations bill.