- 9 -
regarding application and interpretation of � 168(f)(1).” ABC
Rentals of San Antonio, Inc. v. Commissioner, __ F.3d __ (10th
Cir., Apr. 14, 1998) (slip op. at 6). In addition, that Court of
Appeals also noted that, even if the underlying facts had not
been stipulated, “this case still would present a mixed question
of law and fact in which the legal issues predominate.” Id. In
ABC Rentals of San Antonio, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that section
168(f)(1) did not preclude use of the income forecast method, and
the case was remanded to this Court for a decision as to whether
a proper election was made under section 168(f)(1) and whether
the income forecast method was properly applied to produce
reasonable depreciation allowances. Id. (slip op. at 23).5
On occasion, this Court relies on a test case process for
resolving issues that affect more than one taxpayer. See Rybak
v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524 (1988); Clayden v. Commissioner, 90
5 The earlier consolidated cases were appealed to different
appellate venues (the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth
Circuits). Petitioner, as Tax Matters Person of El Charro,
appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and the other two cases were
appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Although the El Charro I opinion
was affirmed without published opinion by the Fifth Circuit, on
Sept. 27, 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
reversed and remanded the ABC Rentals of San Antonio case. See
ABC Rentals of San Antonio, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 392
(10th Cir. 1996). A rehearing was sought, and, on Apr. 14, 1998,
the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the rehearing
petition and vacated and revised its original opinion. The
revised opinion reversed the decision in the case of ABC Rentals
of San Antonio and remanded for further proceedings.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011