- 13 - the income of the equipment was not forecasted in order to calculate the depreciation deduction. Petitioner’s president stated that revenue generated by the equipment dropped off after the fourth or fifth quarter. Thus, under the income forecast method of depreciation, petitioner would not have depreciated the machines evenly over 2 years. We conclude that petitioner did not use the income forecast method to depreciate its equipment, but, rather, a term of 2 years. In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not herein discussed, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued granting respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011