- 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