Durham Farms #1 - Page 26




                                       - 26 -                                         
          the applicable statutes permitting those deductions.  See New               
          Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934); Karme v.                
          Commissioner, 673 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1982), affg. 73 T.C.            
          1163 (1980).                                                                
          Issue 1.  Depreciation Deductions Claimed by the Seven Cattle-              
          Breeding Partnerships in the Instant Cases                                  
               Section 167 generally allows as a depreciation deduction a             
          reasonable allowance for exhaustion and wear and tear of property           
          used in business or of property held for the production of                  
          income.  The person who bears the economic loss of invested                 
          capital resulting from the exhaustion and wear and tear of                  
          business property or property held for the production of income             
          is the one entitled to the depreciation deduction.  See Helvering           
          v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 254 (1939).                         
               In the instant cases, petitioners and respondent recognize             
          that for DF #1, SGE 82-1, DGE 84-3, SGE 84-5, DGE 86-2, TBS 89-1,           
          and TBS 90-1 to be entitled to their claimed depreciation and               
          other deductions, each partnership must be the owner for tax                
          purposes of the specific numbers of breeding cattle that it                 
          allegedly purchased and placed in service during the years in               
          issue.  Respondent raises no contention that each partnership was           
          in an activity not engaged in for profit.  Although respondent              
          has not asserted that each partnership’s transaction was a sham,            
          the parties disagree to some extent with respect to the                     
          transactions’ economic substance.  They disagree over whether               





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011