Case: C. C. Watson, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent; W. C. Cheeseman, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Watson v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1929-02-14
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 20810, 20811
Citation: 15 B.T.A. 422
Volume: 15
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: C. C. Watson, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. W. C. Cheeseman, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 422–424

Head Matter:
C. C. Watson, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. W. C. Cheeseman, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket Nos. 20810, 20811.
Promulgated February 14, 1929.
Charles L. Frailey, Esq., for the petitioner.
J. E. Marshall, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Siepjkin:
All of the evidence is to the effect that the properties under discussion were purchased jointly by petitioners as an investment and that the decision to raze the buildings was not reached until early in 1922. We must, accordingly, reject the respondent's contention that the case is governed by the decision in Arthur H. Ingle, 1 B. T. A. 595, which turned upon the fact that the taxpayer, when he purchased the property, expected to raze the improvements and devote the land to other uses.
We have held in a number of cases that a deductible loss, measured by unextinguished cost, resulted where existing improvements were razed to make way for other buildings. First National Bank, 1 B. T. A. 9; Burnside Steel Co., 3 B. T. A. 20; J. H. Paget, 6 B. T. A. 310.
The cost of improvements razed, or $12,000, less depreciation thereon at the rates claimed and allowed during the years intervening between the date of purchase and the year the demolition occurred, should be divided equally between petitioners as allowable deductions.
Judgment will Toe entered under Bule 50.