Bookwalter v. Centropolis Crusher Company
| Decision Date | 24 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 16214.,16214. |
| Citation | 281 F.2d 798 |
| Parties | E. O. BOOKWALTER, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. CENTROPOLIS CRUSHER COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James P. Turner, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., made argument for appellant. Abbott M. Sellers, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., and Clark A. Ridpath, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., were with James P. Turner, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
John A. Biersmith, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., made argument for appellee, and John G. Madden and James E. Burke, Kansas City, Mo., were with John A. Biersmith, Kansas City, Mo., on brief.
Before GARDNER, VOGEL, and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
The issue presented by the appeal herein revolved around the proper basis for computing depletion allowances in connection with appellee's business of mining, processing, and selling chemical grade limestone. Our opinion, filed December 15, 1959, 272 F.2d 391, affirmed the judgment below upon the basis of our prior holding in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Iowa Limestone Co., 8 Cir., 269 F.2d 398.
On December 31, 1959, a petition for rehearing was filed by Appellant, advising that on December 14, 1959, certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court in Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 268 F.2d 334. Action upon this petition for rehearing was suspended pending a final ruling in that case.
On June 27, 1960, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Cannelton case, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals. United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co., 80 S.Ct. 1581. Although the facts there indicated an actual fabrication of clay products from raw fire clay and shale, the Supreme Court, in ruling upon the matter, stated that the "profitability test", as adopted by this Circuit in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Iowa Limestone Co., supra, and in this case, is "unacceptable." See footnote 10, 80 S.Ct. at page 1588.
Additional briefs have been filed by the parties, with extensive discussion of the portent of the Cannelton decision. It is clear from that decision that numerous factors enter into a determination of the "cut-off point" when "gross income from mining" stops, for the purpose of determining a depletion allowance. Of particular importance to this issue is a determination of when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riddell v. California Portland Cement Company
...page Appendix) in Cannelton. We have also had the benefit of the following decisions rendered since Cannelton: Bookwalter v. Centropolis Crusher Co., 8 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 798, withdrawing its decision at 272 F. 2d 391; Great Bend Brick & Tile Co. v. United States, D.C.Kan.1961, 194 F.Supp......
-
FAYLOR v. Commissioner, Docket No. 65255.
...Crusher Company v. Book-walter 59-1 USTC ¶ 9139, 168 F. Supp. 33 (W. D. Mo. 1958), reversed on another issue, 60-2 USTC ¶ 9682 281 F. 2d 798 (C. A. 8, 1960). Although the end-use test has been rejected,9 it is necessary in some cases to consider the potential end use of a mineral to arrive ......
-
Bookwalter v. Centropolis Crusher Company
...consistent with the teachings of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co. * * *." Bookwalter v. Centropolis Crusher Company, 8 Cir., 281 F.2d 798, 799. On remand, the district court, ruling that further evidence was neither necessary nor appropriate, reaffirmed the pri......