Summary

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

In Massey and Hertz we held that when a taxpayer, at the time he acquires an asset, reasonably expects he will use it for less than its full physical or economic life, he must, for purposes of computing depreciation, employ a useful life based on the period of expected use. We recognized in those cases that depreciation is based on estimates as to useful life and salvage value.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

In so defining depreciation, tax law has long recognized the accounting concept that depreciation is a process of estimated allocation which does not take account of fluctuations in valuation through market appreciation. [2]
It is, of course, undisputed that the Commissioner may require redetermination of useful life or salvage value when it becomes apparent that either of these factors has been miscalculated. The fact of sale of an asset at an amount greater than its depreciated basis may be evidence of such a miscalculation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

The taxpayer must report as ordinary income all depreciation recouped on sale, and this notwithstanding that the sale was part of a nonrecognition liquidation within § 337. In 1964, a more complex recapture provision dealing with real property was enacted. This time, however, Congress took into account the fact that increases in the value of real property are often attributable to a rise in the general price level and limited recapture of depreciation as ordinary income to a percentage of the excess over straight-line depreciation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature