68 F.3d 41, 1995 U.S. App.95-2 U.S. Tax
Cas. (CCH) P50,552; 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6911
CASE SYNOPSIS: Respondent, Commissioner
of Internal Revenue. appealed from a decision of the United States
Tax Court in favor of petitioner taxpayers that allowed depreciation
deductions for violin bows as recovery property under I.R.C. §
168(c)(1).
FACTS: Petitioner taxpayers were professional violinists who had purchased antique violin bows, which they used regularly in their profession. Petitioners claimed depreciation deductions for the bows on their income tax returns, which respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, disallowed. The lower court allowed the deductions for the bows as recovery property under the Accelerated Cost Recovery System of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, and respondent appealed. Respondent argued that the bows were not property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation under I.R.C. § 168(c)(1) because they retained value as collector's items even after they were no longer functional. In affirming the allowance of the deductions, the court noted that the bows were subject to wear and tear as part of their use in petitioners' trade, and it held that for the purposes of the recovery property provisions of I.R.C. § 168, "property subject to the allowance for depreciation" meant property that was subject to exhaustion, wear and tear, or obsolescence.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment allowing petitioner taxpayers to depreciate their violin bows as recovery property because it found that the bows, which petitioners used as professional musicians, were subject to wear and tear.
---
FACTS: Petitioner taxpayers were professional violinists who had purchased antique violin bows, which they used regularly in their profession. Petitioners claimed depreciation deductions for the bows on their income tax returns, which respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, disallowed. The lower court allowed the deductions for the bows as recovery property under the Accelerated Cost Recovery System of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, and respondent appealed. Respondent argued that the bows were not property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation under I.R.C. § 168(c)(1) because they retained value as collector's items even after they were no longer functional. In affirming the allowance of the deductions, the court noted that the bows were subject to wear and tear as part of their use in petitioners' trade, and it held that for the purposes of the recovery property provisions of I.R.C. § 168, "property subject to the allowance for depreciation" meant property that was subject to exhaustion, wear and tear, or obsolescence.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment allowing petitioner taxpayers to depreciate their violin bows as recovery property because it found that the bows, which petitioners used as professional musicians, were subject to wear and tear.
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