Court Opinion

ID: 4500568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 18:16:59.554054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:18.027240
License: Public Domain

GeeeN,
dissenting: I can not agree with the conclusion reached in the opinion adopted by the majority of the Board. As was therein stated, we have all the facts before us. It is necessary only to pass upon one question of law in order that we have a complete formula for the solution of the problem. The question of law is whether the basis (cost or March 1, 1913, value, as the case may be) for the purpose of determining gain or loss on a sale or other disposition of property shall be reduced by the amount of the exhaustion, wear and tear sustained prior to March 1, 1913. The exhaustion, wear and tear are commonly referred to as depreciation.
*1107The Revenue Act of 1913 and all subsequent acts, have provided foi an annual deduction from gross income for depreciation, but not until the Revenue Act of 1921 was there any expressed statutory requirement that depreciation be considered in the computation of the gain or loss resulting from the sale or other disposition of depreciable property. Prior to the passage of the 1921 Act, the authority for such consideration was found only in the Commissioner’s regulations and the decisions of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
We held in the Appeal of Even Realty Co., 1 B. T. A. 355, that when computing the amount of the gain or loss resulting from the sale or other disposition of property, the basis for such computation, whether that basis be cost or March 1,1913, value, should be reduced by the amount of the depreciation. This case arose under the Revenue Act of 1918, which contained no provision with reference to the use of depreciation in the computation of gain or loss. The Supreme Court in United States v. Ludey, 274 U. S. 295, held that such reduction should be in the amount of the allowable depreciation or depletion. This it held upon the theory that the deduction for depletion is “to be regarded as a return of capital,” and it is obvious that depreciation is to be similarly regarded.
Prior to the Revenue Act of 1921, none of the revenue acts specified the basis for depreciation of property acquired prior to March 1,1913, but I think it is now commonly conceded that under such prior acts the value on that date is the basis. See Appeal of J. J. Gray, 2 B. T. A. 672. It is the value on that date which is to be returned to the taxpayer through the annual deductions. Regardless of the depreciation sustained prior to that date, he is entitled to have his deduction computed and allowed upon that basis, and the sum of such allowable deductions must be deducted from the cost or March 1,1913, value in the computation of gain or loss.
In every case where property was acquired prior to March 1, 1913, and sold or disposed of after that date, the March 1, 1913, value must be considered in determining accurately the amount of the taxable gain or deductible loss. It may or may not be a limitation on the gain or the loss depending upon, in the first instance, whether such value is greater than the cost, and in the second instance, whether it is less than cost.
In ascertaining the March 1, 1913, value, theories and formulas should be put aside and the determination made upon actualities. See Rockford Malleable Iron Works, 2 B. T. A. 819. But inevitably, since depreciation, in the sense of wear and tear, takes place to a greater or lesser degree, in all depreciable property, such depreciation affects the March 1, 1913, value and is reflected therein although it may be that other elements, such as appreciation in value, *1108are also reflected. In the instances where the March 1, 1913, value is used as the basis for the determination of gain or loss, the reduction of such basis by the amount of depreciation sustained prior to March 1, 1913, would in itself practically result in the allowance of a double deduction for depreciation. It seems to me quite clear that Congress intended -that only the allowable depreciation should be deducted from the cost or March 1, 1913, value in determining gain or loss. The further reduction of such basis by the amount of the depreciation sustained prior to March 1, 1913, would destroy the mathematical and economical precision of the .fundamental principle.
My conclusion in this respect finds ample support in the legislative history. In section 202 (b) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1926, Congress, for the first time, enacted a statute requiring the reduction of the basis by the amount of depreciation sustained prior to March 1,1913. The last sentence of such paragraph, reads as follows:
In addition, if the property was acquired before March 1, 1913, the basis (if other than the fair market value as of March 1, 1913) shall be diminished in the amount of exhaustion, wear and tear, obsolescence, and depletion actually sustained before such date.
The report of the Ways and Means Committee to the House of Representatives, with reference to this new provision, is as follows:
When property is acquired prior to March 1, 1913, the present law provides that in the ease of a sale of such property the basis for determining' gain or loss shall be cost or March 1, 1913, value, whichever is higher; and also provides that in making adjustments for depreciation, etc., proper adjustment shall be made for depreciation, etc., “previously allowed.” Owing to the fact that there was no income tax prior to March 1, 1913, in cases where property was acquired prior to that date no depreciation has been “ allowed,” and the taxpayer may receive too large a basis for determining gain or loss. The amendment proposed provides that the deductions for depreciation, etc., to be made in such cases shall be such deductions as were actually sustained with respect to such property, which would inelude such depreciation as had occurred prior to that date.
The report of the Senate Finance Committee with reference to the new provision, reads as follows:
When property was acquired prior to March 1, 1913, the present law provides that in the case of a sale of such property the basis for determining gain or loss shall be cost or March 1, 1913, value, whichever is higher; and also provides that in making adjustments for depreciation, etc., proper adjustment shall be made for depreciation, etc., “ previously allowed.” Owing to the fact that there was no income tax prior to March 1, 1913, in cases where property was acquired prior to that date no depreciation has been “ allowed,” and the taxpayer may receive too large a basis for determining gain or loss. The amendment proposed provides that the deductions for depreciation, etc., to be made in such cases shall be such deductions as were actually sustained with respect to such property, which would include such depreciation as had occurred prior to that date.
*1109Under existing law in the case of determining gain from the sale or other disposition of property, the cost or March 1, 1913, value of such property is required to be reduced by the amount of depreciation or depletion aiLowed under prior income tax laws. It has been claimed that the effect of this provision is to allow a taxpayer to elect to take no depreciation or depletion against his annual income and to permit him to write off the entire cost or March 1 value at time of sale. The bill as passed by the House provides that the cost or March 1, 1913, value in the case of sale shall be reduced by the amount of depreciation or depletion allowable under prior income tax acts in computing the gain subject to tax. It is believed that the rule stated by the House bill is the correct rule and that all taxpayers should be required to take proper annual deductions for depreciation and depletion.
It seems to me clear tliat in the computation of gain or loss resulting from the sale or other disposition of property acquired prior to March 1, 1913, and sold prior to the effective date of the Revenue Act of 1926, the basis, whether such basis be cost or March 1, 1913, value, may be reduced only by the amount of depreciation sustained subsequent to March 1,1913, and allowable under the various revenue acts in effect since such date.
Murdock, Smith, Siefkin, Trussell, Trammell, and Van Fossan concur in the dissent.