United States v. Regan

Decision Date29 April 1969
Docket NumberNo. 22730.,22730.
Citation410 F.2d 744
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Dorothy C. REGAN, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

David E. Carmack (argued), Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Grant W. Wiprud, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Norman Sepenuk, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellant.

Eugene E. Feltz (argued), of Casey, Palmer & Feltz, Portland, Or., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG, ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge:

The Government appeals from a judgment in favor of the taxpayer in her suit for a refund of federal income taxes paid for the calendar years 1960-1962. The Government contends that the District Court erred in holding that the taxpayer, a member of a joint venture earning income from timber cutting contracts, could deduct from ordinary income her share of the venture's costs of building access roads to the timber and that those costs were not capital expenses.

The facts are uncontroverted. The taxpayer and others formed a joint venture called Idapine Tenants in April 1960. Idapine Tenants bought the assets of a partnership engaged in the lumbering business. The assets included logging equipment, plants, and all of the capital stock of Idapine Mills, Inc., an Oregon corporation. The operating equipment was then leased to the corporation. Idapine Tenants had a contract with the Forest Service to cut merchantable timber on certain Government land for which rights Idapine Tenants agreed to pay a royalty based on a specified stumpage rate per thousand board feet cut and removed, and further agreed to build access roads to the timber stand. Idapine Tenants built the access roads. Thereafter the venture transferred to its wholly owned operating corporation the joint venture's cutting rights in return for the corporation's payment of specified royalties. The joint venturers, including the taxpayer, amortized the cost of the access roads on the basis of the quantity of timber sold. The taxpayer deducted her share of the amortized costs as ordinary business expenses. The Commissioner disallowed the deductions and assessed deficiencies. The taxpayer paid the assessments and brought this action for her refund.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 does not contain a specific provision disallowing deductions for the expenditures in issue. (Compare § 272.) The taxpayer contends that the omission was purposeful and that Congress intended to give taxpayers in her position not only the benefit of capital gains treatment of the income derived from cutting timber, but also the extra tax dividend of deductibility of expenses incurred in reaching the timber. Congress did not create the lacuna through which the taxpayer has tried to leap. Section 631(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 which extends capital gains treatment to the income Idapine Tenants received from Idapine Mills, Inc., provides that gain is measured by "the difference between the amount realized from the disposal of such timber and the adjusted depletion basis thereof * * * as though it were a gain * * * on the sale of such timber." To find the definition of "adjusted depletion basis" one must pursue a clutch of related code sections. Section 612 tells us that the basis on which depletion is to be allowed is provided in section 1011. Section 1011 says that basis is cost (section 1012) subject to adjustments as provided in section 1016. Section 1016 requires that "proper adjustment * * *...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1980
    ...a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (to which an appeal in this case would normally lie). See United States v. Regan, 410 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 834 (1969), a case involving section 631(b). There, the court held that expenses “directly related t......
  • Davis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 31 Julio 1980
    ...a somewhat analogous situation, “Congress did not create the lacuna through which the taxpayer has tried to leap.” United States v. Regan, 410 F.2d 744, 745 (9th Cir. 1969). The taxpayer there had argued that Congress intended to give taxpayers in her position not only the benefit of capita......
  • Tenneco, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 13 Noviembre 1970
    ...which were decided prior to the enactment of the provisions in question. Respecting post-1954 cases, we are cited to United States v. Regan, 9 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 744; Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. United States, 1966, 368 F.2d 233, 177 Ct.Cl. 395, and Willow Terrace Development Compan......
  • Casey v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 12 Mayo 1972
    ...and 1962 and the same issues presented in this case, was before the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Regan, 410 F.2d 744 (1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 834, 90 S.Ct. 91, 24 L.Ed.2d 85. The court concluded as Are expenditures for building access roads capital......

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