Court Opinion

ID: 4497215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 18:15:18.996803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:04.701457
License: Public Domain

OPINION.
Lansdon :
The petitioner asks for the deduction of $118,267.22 and $129,018.79 from his gross income for the years 1918 and 1919 on account of obsolescence of 640 acres of wine-grape vineyards and loss of profits from operation of the same during the respective years, and relies on the provisions of section 214 (a) (8) of the Eevenue Act of 1918, which is as follows :
A reasonable allowance lor exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in the trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence.
There is no dispute of the reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of the petitioner’s vineyards. The parties agree on the basic value per acre at March 1, 1913, on the useful life of vineyards of the type owned by the petitioner, on the rate of depreciation, and on the total amount of deductible depreciation. Such de*1058predation has been computed, deducted, and allowed. The only question for our consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to further deductions from his gross income for the taxable years on account of obsolescence and loss of profits, resulting from national prohibition, in the amounts set forth in our findings of fact.
It is obvious that this petitioner seeks to apply the provisions of the law to his advantage on a purely hypothetical basis. If Federal prohibition legislation had totally destroj^ed the market for wine grapes, the petitioner might then have been entitled to a reasonable allowance for the obsolescence of his wine-grape vineyards; but even in such an event, not proved in this proceeding, we know of no law that would authorize the deduction of estimated profits from gross income in the determination of Federal tax liability. The record completely refutes the theory and the argument of the petitioner. The market for wine grapes was not destroyed in 1918. Instead of losses dming the taxable year, it is proved by the stipulation that the taxpayer obtained higher prices for his crops, and it is a fair presumption that such increase in receipts insulted in increased profits.

Judgment for the Commissioner.