RENZIEHAUSEN
v.
LUCAS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
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.
A distillery owner claimed a tax deduction for the exhaustion and obsolescence of goodwill in his whiskey business under the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, and argued that unsold aged whiskey should be treated as a capital asset rather than inventory. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision denying the goodwill deduction, relying on its reasoning in a companion case, and held that the aged whiskey constituted stock in trade and therefore was not eligible for the more favorable capital gains tax rate.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the same questions as the preceding one, Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., ante, p. 384, but was decided the other way. 31 F. (2d) 675. A writ of certiorari was granted by this court on October 14, 1929.
The good will here concerned, (treated as embracing trade-marks, trade brands and trade names,) was that of a business of distilling and selling whiskey, warehousing, and a wholesale liquor business. The Board of Tax Appeals adjudged a deficiency in the petitioner’s income tax returns for 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1922. A deduction is claimed by him, as in the other case, for exhaustion or obsolescence of the good will, under the Revenue Act of 1918, (Act of February 24, 1919,) c. 18, § 214 (a) (8); 40 Stat. 1057, 1067, using the same words for individuals that are used in § 234 for corporations, and under the Revenue Act of 1921, (Act of November 23, 1921,) c. 136, § 214 (a) (8); 42 Stat. 227, 240, using the same words again. What has been said in the Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co.’s case is sufficient to dispose of this one, and here there is the additional fact that in 1919 the petitioner became aware that he could manufacture whiskey for medicinal purposes and did so until the Willis-Campbell Act of November 23, 1921, c. 134; 42 Stat. 222, was passed and the petitioner failed to obtain a permit under it. The evidence does not seem to warrant an alternative claim under the Revenue Act of 1918, § 214 (a) (4), for losses incurred in business in 1919, even if otherwise it could be sustained.
The only other question that seems to need mention is raised by an account headed “ Old Whiskey,” on the books of the Large Distilling Company, under which name the petitioner did the distilling business. At the close of each distilling season the whiskey manufactured and not sold was charged to this account, matured and sold to the trade. The petitioner regarded this whiskey as a personal investment, but the whole business was his, and we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the whiskey was clearly a part of the stock in trade, and therefore that he was not entitled to the more favorable rate allowed by the Act of November 23, 1921, c. 136, § 206 (6), for taxes on capital gain, excluding stock in trade. The petitioner has no reason to complain of the allowance for obsolescence of the warehouses.
Decree affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Stone concur in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 40 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1930)…ve any advantage, directly or indirectly, or any reduction, directly or indirectly, of these penalties. Clarke, Collector, v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company, 280 U. S. 384, 50 S. Ct. 155, 74 L. Ed.-, and Renziehausen v. Lucas, Commissioner, 280 U. S. 387, 50 S. Ct. 156, 74 L. Ed.-, both decided by Supreme Court, January 27, 1930. As to this item, the determination of the Board was correct. Conclusion. The petition to review the determination of the Board should be and is dismissed, at the costs of…
-
V. Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Co. v. Anderson, 282 U.S. 638 (U.S. 1931)…or losses caused by prohibition legislation, and that consequently there can be no deduction for obsolescence here even upon the facts found by the District Court. It relies on Clarke v. Haberle Brewing Co., 280 U. S. 384, and Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U. S. 387. The case at bar was decided in the District Court before our decision in the Haberle case and on the authority of that decision the Circuit Court of Appeals held plaintiff not entitled to any allowance for obsolescence of its buildings. But the so…
-
Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co. v. Woodworth, 115 F.2d 795 (6th Cir. 1940)…The clause in the statute, “including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence,” provides for an allowance resulting from the disuse of the property in the business. Renziehausen v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 31 F. 2d 675, affirmed Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U.S. 387, 50 S.Ct. 156, 74 L.Ed. 501. Cf. State Line & Sullivan Rd. Co. v. Phillips, 3 Cir., 98 F. 2d 651, 120 A.L.R. 441. To" permit the allowance, therefore, while the property is being continuously used for its original purpose, and while no intention t…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Renziehausen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 31 F.2d 675 (3d Cir. 1929)