Swaney v. Commissioner

Decided January 5, 1927

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1927-01-05

On the evidence, held, that cost of liming soil for the purpose of increasing productiveness over a term of years is a capital expenditure which is subject to annual deductions for exhaustion, wear… Held: that cost of liming soil for the purpose of increasing productiveness over a term of years is a capital expenditure which is subject to annual deductions for exhaustion, wear and tear during the period in which such liming is effective.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1944

Relies on Appeal of Sanford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1927-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION.

Lansdon:

¶2We have already held in the Appeal of J. H. Sanford, 2 B. T. A. 181, and in the Appeal of Goodell-Pratt Co., 3 B. T. A. *99230, that disbursements of the nature here involved are capital expenditures. The evidence adduced convinces us that applications of burned lime in the quantities proved by the petitioner are effective for not more than 4 years. We are of the opinion that the cost of such liming should be exhausted for income-tax purposes at the rate of 25 per cent per annum.

¶3Order of redetermination will be made on 10 days’ notice, under Rule 60.

Smith dissents.