Renziehausen v. Lucas
Citation | 50 S.Ct. 156,280 U.S. 387,74 L.Ed. 501 |
Decision Date | 27 January 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 114,114 |
Parties | RENZIEHAUSEN, Petitioner, v. LUCAS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. A. Seifert and William Wallace Booth, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This case raises the same questions as the preceding one, Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., 280 U. S. 384, 50 S. Ct. 155, 74 L. Ed. 498, but was decided the other way. Renziehausen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 675. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on October 14, 1929. 280 U. S. 539, 50 S. Ct. 17, 74 L. Ed. —.
The good will here concerned (treated as embracing trade-marks, trade brands and trade names) was that of a business of distilling and selling whisky, 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 section 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 whisky 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 whisky manufactured and not sold was charged to this account, matured and sold to the trade. The petitioner regarded this whisky as a personal investment, but the whole business was his, and we agree with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newark Morning Ledger Co v. United States
... ... See Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., 280 U.S. 384, 50 S.Ct. 155, 74 L.Ed. 498 (1930); Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U.S. 387, 50 S.Ct. 156, 74 L.Ed. 501 (1930); see also V. Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Co. v. Anderson, 282 U.S. 638, 51 S.Ct. 260, 75 ... ...
-
Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner
...viewed as a part of the goodwill. Clarke v. Haberle Brewing Co. 2 USTC ¶ 466, 280 U.S. 384 (1930); Renziehausen v. Lucas 2 USTC ¶ 465, 280 U.S. 387 (1930); Norwich Pharmacal Co.v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, there is no need to determine what portion of the remaining purchase price is......
-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Boston
...to these plaintiffs constituted the stock in trade of the lessors. See Boston Loan Co. v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332;Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U.S. 387, 50 S.Ct. 156, 74 L.Ed. 501;Roney v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4 Cir., 67 F.2d 165;Charles J. Off & Co. v. Morehead, 235 Ill. 40, 85 N.......
-
State Line & Sullivan R. Co. v. Phillips
...commercial value in the railroad property upon April 30, 1934. Renziehausen v. Lucas, 3 Cir., 31 F.2d 675, affirmed 280 U.S. 387, 50 S.Ct. 156, 74 L.Ed. 501. In fact such rental, if capitalized, would confer upon the railroad property a value in excess of $300,000, and since the proposed le......