GENERAL TELEVISION, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to deduct depreciation for intangible assets.
Plaintiff claimed depreciation deductions for intangible assets on its tax returns for 1964 and 1965. The IRS disallowed these deductions, assessed de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intangible Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court1 ordering that the plaintiff take nothing by its cause of action and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).
For the purpose of providing some background the basic facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed returns for its tax years 1964 and 1965 in timely fashion. When the tax returns were audited the Internal Revenue determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to deduct amounts which it claimed as depreciation for its intangible assets and assessments were made for the deficiencies. The assessments were paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff thereafter timely filed claim for refund.
The Commission disallowed the plaintiff’s claims and this action was then brought to cover the amounts disallowed plus interest at the statutory rate. The only issue between the parties was whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a depreciation deduction for the intangible assets of its Delmarva-Peninsula and Diamond State CATV systems and, if so, in what amount.
Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s well reasoned opinion in General Television, Inc. v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 609 (D.Minn.1978).
Affirmed.
. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donrey, Inc. v. United States, 809 F.2d 534 (8th Cir. 1987)
-
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. The United States, 945 F.2d 555 (3d Cir. 1991)