- 4 - In the notices of deficiency,3 respondent determined petitioner’s depreciation deductions by using the straight-line method over a 7-year recovery period with a half-year convention. Discussion I. Summary Judgment Respondent moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether petitioner must use MACRS to calculate its depreciation deductions on the gaming equipment. Respondent argues that petitioner cannot use a 2-year straight-line method to compute its depreciation deductions because petitioner failed to: (1) Make proper, timely elections to exclude property from MACRS under section 168(f)(1)(A), and (2) use a method of depreciation not expressed in a term of years under section 168(f)(1)(B). Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and a decision may be entered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). 3 Respondent issued the notices of deficiency on Apr. 2, 1999 (for the 1994 tax year), and Sept. 17, 1999 (for the 1995 and 1996 tax years). Petitioner filed its petitions at the Tax Court on June 28, 1999 (for the 1994 tax year), and Dec. 20, 1999 (for the 1995 and 1996 tax years).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011