1927 BTA LEXIS 2540 | B.T.A. | 1927
Lead Opinion
Petitioner contends that the unamortized or unextin-guished cost of the old lease became a loss upon the execution of the new lease and that a deduction of the total amount should be allowed in the taxable year. Respondent treated it as a cost of the new lease ta be exhausted or recovered by proration over the term thereof. We agree with the position of the respondent.
In the case of Charles N. Manning v. Commissioner, 7 B. T. A. 286, we held that the unextinguished cost of buildings removed in order to obtain a 99-year lease upon the land represented the cost to the lessor of such lease and should be exhausted over the term of the lease. In the opinion we said:
Taken by itself, the petitioners undoubtedly would be said to have sustained a loss in the demolition of their buildings, but when considered in connection with the entire transaction entered into on October 33, 1921, the Board is of the opinion that the removal of the buildings was fully compensated for in the rights acquired under the lease and that the cost of the buildings, less sustained depreciation, is properly allocable to the cost of securing the lease. In other words, there was in this instance what amounted to a substitution of assets; instead of an asset in the form of buildings, the petitioners now have another asset, viz., a lease, the giving up or voluntary destruction of the buildings being a necessary incident to the acquisition of the lease.
Judgment will be entered on 15 days’’ notice, under Bule 50.