Summary

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Parsons v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

Whether a deduction from gross income shall be permitted for depletion of mineral deposits, or any interest therein, is entirely a matter of grace. [5] We therefore must look, first to the provisions and purposes of the statutes and to the decisions construing them to see what interests are permitted a deduction for depletion, and, next, to the contracts involved to see whether they gave to petitioners such an interest.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Parsons v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

We take a different view. It stands admitted that before and apart from their contracts, petitioners had no investment or interest in the coal in place. Their asserted right to the deduction rests entirely upon their contracts. Is there anything in those contracts to indicate that petitioners made a capital investment in, or acquired an economic interest in, the coal in place, as distinguished from the acquisition of a mere economic advantage to be derived from their mining operations? We think it is quite plain that there is not.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature