Pittsburgh Hotels Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 4291.

Decision Date11 September 1930
Docket NumberNo. 4291.,4291.
Citation43 F.2d 345
PartiesPITTSBURGH HOTELS CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

S. Leo Ruslander, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (George R. Beneman, of Washington, D. C., and Samuel Kaufman, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for petitioner.

G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and John Vaughan Groner, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Frank M. Thompson, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner filed a consolidated income and profits tax return which included the income of its subsidiaries, among which was the William Penn Hotel Company, which operated the William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, Pa. In the returns, the petitioner claimed 3½ per cent. depreciation for "exhaustion, wear and tear," but the Commissioner on a reaudit allowed only 2 per cent., and the petitioner appealed to this court.

The parts of the building on which the 3½ per cent. rate of depreciation is claimed consists of the foundations, framework, walls, roof, floors, trimming, inside stairways of steel and reinforced concrete, and other fixtures. Depreciation has been allowed at a higher rate on plumbing fixtures, heating and ventilating systems, electric wiring, elevators, lighting fixtures, tile floors, and elevator machinery, and there is no controversy here as to the rate on them.

The William Penn Hotel has nineteen stories above the ground and three stories below. It is 265 feet in height. That part of the building on which 3½ per cent. depreciation is claimed, and constitutes the controversy here, costs $2,378,822.09.

The determination by the Commissioner of 2 per cent. depreciation is prima facie correct and must stand unless overcome by substantial evidence. The Board said that:

"The Commissioner introduced two witnesses who testified in his behalf before the Court of Claims and in substance stated the allowance customarily made by the Commissioner for depreciation of buildings of the character and construction of the William Penn Hotel building is 2 per cent. per annum. The testimony of these witnesses adds no weight to the prima facie correctness of the Commissioner's determination."

This left the case standing on the presumption of correctness of the determination by the Commissioner, for the two witnesses who testified for him are clerks in his office, never saw the property, and all their depositions amounted to was to state that the general policy of the Department on property of this general class was to allow a 2 per cent. annual depreciation. In other words, according to their testimony, in making allowance for depreciation, the Commissioner does not consider the circumstances surrounding the property and the particular facts affecting depreciation in any individual property. It is a well-known fact that in the same locality property which is not used with due care, not kept well painted, and in good repair generally, will depreciate much more rapidly than property which has been well kept. Property in one locality depreciates more rapidly than in another locality. Depreciation is a fact which in any particular case must be determined from the testimony of competent witnesses who know the facts upon which a just conclusion must be predicated. The Bureau of Internal Revenue published a bulletin of instructions for its agents which was in force at the time the taxes in question were determined, entitled, "Bulletin F — Income Tax — Depreciation and Obsolescence — Revenue Act of 1918." On page 26 of that bulletin the following instruction is given:

"It is considered impracticable to prescribe fixed, definite rates of depreciation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Factor v. CIR
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 27, 1960
    ...Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 570, 572. 26 Helvering v. Taylor, 1935, 293 U.S. 507, 514-516, 55 S.Ct. 287, 79 L.Ed. 623; Pittsburgh Hotels Co. v. C.I.R., 3 Cir., 1930, 43 F.2d 345, 347; Lunsford v. C.I.R., 6 Cir., 1933, 62 F.2d 740, 742; Blackmer v. C.I.R., 2 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 255, 257; Nicholas v......
  • Alvary v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 18, 1962
    ...237 F.2d 611 (8 Cir. 1956); Nachod & United States Signal Co. v. Helvering, 74 F.2d 164 (6 Cir. 1934); Pittsburgh Hotels Co. v. Commissioner, 43 F.2d 345 (3 Cir. 1930). The finding that the two parcels of real property here in question had no fair market value in 1947 and 1948 was clearly A......
  • City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 28, 1956
    ...Tax Regulations, 1954, p. 127. The burden of sustaining the depreciation deduction was upon the taxpayer. Pittsburgh Hotels Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 43 F.2d 345. It was somewhat difficult to sustain if the deduction claimed was greater than normal depreciation. Cf. T......
  • City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 28, 1956
    ... ... Pittsburgh Hotels Co. v. Commissioner of Internal ... Revenue, 43 F.2d 345 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT