Case: Faircloth & Shore, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Abbreviation: Faircloth & Shore v. Commissioner
Decision Date: 1927-12-22
Docket Number: Docket No. 19685
Citation: 9 B.T.A. 800
Volume: 9
Reporter: Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals
Court: United States Board of Tax Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Faircloth & Shore, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Judges: Considered by MuRdock and Siefkin.
Pages: 800–802

Head Matter:
Faircloth & Shore, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
Docket No. 19685.
Promulgated December 22, 1927.
Russell Snow, Esq., and 3. T. Amason, Esq., for the petitioner.
W. E. Lawder, Esq., for the respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION.
Mokris:
The only assets upon which we have sufficient information to determine a reasonable allowance for exhaustion, wear and tear are the logging equipment and the trucks. Such evidence indicates that the depreciation rate used by the respondent is too low. On the planing mill and milling equipment in Plants No. 1 and No. 2, which comprise the major portion of petitioner's plant, the evidence is too meager to determine a reasonable allowance. As the respondent applied a rate of 10 per cent to all the assets and the petitioner has proved that that rate is incorrect only as to a small portion thereof, the respondent's determination is approved. Appeal of Citizens Trust Co. of Utica, 2 B. T. A. 1239; Appeal of Art Metal Construction Co., 4 B. T. A. 493; Boucher-Cortright Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 7 B. T. A. 1.
Judgment will be entered for Che respondent.
Considered by MuRdock and Siefkin.