Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v.
United States case brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
126 F. Supp. 184 (Ct. Cl. 1954)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff corporate
taxpayer brought suit against defendant government to recover
overpaid income taxes resulting from plaintiff's claim that it was
entitled to depreciate the cost of a franchise obtained through the
exchange of a bridge, using as the basis for the franchise as the
undepreciated cost of the bridge.
FACTS: Plaintiff operated an amusement park that was serviced by a bridge conveying rail and pedestrian traffic to the park. After being told that the bridge needed repairs for which plaintiff was obligated to effect, it entered into a deal where the bridge would be given to the city in exchange for a ten-year franchise in which it would retain a right of way over the bridge. Since the franchise had no established value, plaintiff used the undepreciated cost of the bridge as its basis for depreciating the franchise. Plaintiff thereafter sought to recover an overpayment of taxes made by its failure to claim any depreciation.
FACTS: Plaintiff operated an amusement park that was serviced by a bridge conveying rail and pedestrian traffic to the park. After being told that the bridge needed repairs for which plaintiff was obligated to effect, it entered into a deal where the bridge would be given to the city in exchange for a ten-year franchise in which it would retain a right of way over the bridge. Since the franchise had no established value, plaintiff used the undepreciated cost of the bridge as its basis for depreciating the franchise. Plaintiff thereafter sought to recover an overpayment of taxes made by its failure to claim any depreciation.
HOLDING:
The court of claims held that plaintiff
was entitled to use the fair market value as the cost basis of the
franchise for purposes of determining depreciation and loss, and
remanded the question of fair market value of franchise to the
commissioner of the court to make that determination.
CONCLUSION: Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and the case was remanded the question of fair market value of franchise to the commissioner of the court for taking evidence and filing a report thereon.
---
CONCLUSION: Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and the case was remanded the question of fair market value of franchise to the commissioner of the court for taking evidence and filing a report thereon.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment