*1 of a release held that there been prisoner authorities to state federal sentence, serving purpose state being prior expiration such release imprisonment, term of the federal ju of federal does effectuate loss re so the individual risdiction over Accordingly, courts leased. held, upon of the individual release custody, reinvocation state release, parole or the federal conditional taken back the individual custody completion federal Taylor, sentence. Stubblefield v. federal 271; Sanford, Cir., v. Gould Cir., F.2d 877. agree and re with the cases, in those the under sult reached
lying
expression
finds
rationale
v.
of this court in Strand
Schmittroth,
Affirmed. America,
UNITED STATES of Appellant,
v. CORPORATION, MOTORLEASE Appellee. Friedlander, Dept. A. William of Jus Washington, tice, (Louis D. C. F. Ober No. Docket 28470. dorfer, Atty. Gen, Jackson, Asst. Lee A. Appeals United States Court of Harry Baum, Dept, Justice, Washing Second Circuit. ton, C, Zampano, D. and Robert C. U. S. Argued Jan. 1964. Atty, Connecticut, District of New Hav July 15, Decided en, Conn, Eagan, Hartford, and F. Owen Conn, brief), appellant. on the O’Neill, Conn, Hartford, Norris L.
appellee. Lyons, Lyons Perlman, Ellis & Em merglick, Washington, C,D. and Jess S. Raban, Chicago, Ill., for Automotive Assn, Leasing as amicus curiae. Judge, Before MARSHALL, WATERMAN and Judges. *2 Judge: for in these automobiles the full amount depreci- allowable under its established presented question is wheth The schedule, disregarding ation the amounts may depreciation taxpayer a take aer upon received sale. The Commissioner year depre of sale of a for the duction depre- of Internal Revenue disallowed as by of the amount in excess asset ciable ciation deductions the amounts in excess adjusted at basis of the asset the by adjusted of the amount which the year beginning of sale exceeds the beginning basis of the automobile at the upon In the sale. realized amount the year of sale exceeded the sale taxpayer, words, may for a ex other price. payment deficiencies, After depreciation ample, in of excess upon rejection required and of ad- the adjusted of asset basis the when the $250 refund, ministrative claims for the tax- year beginning of taxable at the the payer brought suit refund the during sold the and asset is the $1000 District of Connecticut. On cross mo- year at a time when taxable $750 summary judgment, tions adjusted with in accordance basis $400 granted Blumenfeld mo- the straight- already of scale established (D.Conn.1963). tion. 215 depreciation. hold that in such a line authority of, On the and for the reasons be deduction would limited case the given Fribourg Navigation Co. v. $250. de- Corporation, The the Motorlease tax- today, judgment of cided reverse the payer, corporation is a Connecticut en- direct that sum- the district court and gaged leasing automobiles. After em- mary judgment in favor be entered ploying leasing operation them the Commissioner. period years, of from one to Mo- two taxpayer upon generally The relies disposes here of the auto- torlease essentially Code and the same sections on mobiles either sale or trade-in regulations upon years as the were relied new In of automobiles. three Fribourg. taxpayer in But neither more than 300 here relevant automobiles dispositive disposed were of sale. question of the issue. The rather depreciated Motorlease the automobiles which construction of these sections best establishing straight-line basis, on a a de- design congressional comports with the percent per schedule 2% establishing depreciation provi incorporated month which an estimate sions the Internal Revenue laws. The of the useful of the vehicles in the transmutation- ordinary Jncome leasing operation and an gams_Jii_n.u.fi_con capital senuenc<=T~which probable their value at the ter- p:royigiuns-eertainiy~were-mot mination of that useful life. signed design to_eixcoiixage. is to Their through prevent The automobile sales relevant here a loss types: first, depreciable were of two where the sale cost of as unrecovered price adjusted sets, provide basis —cost exceeded the not to with depreciation already profit less and taken —of over above that cost. Where beginning determined to an absolute automobile it cer year; second, taifity-thaF nrofit able sale will where the sucíTa depreciation, price, though adjusted less than basis allowance of further beginning year, casehere, at the in rea the taxable ex- is thé there is no basis adjusted policy permit taxpayer to ceeded the basis of the automo- or son computed pro advantage proved bile the date sale as take of what has to be according rata to the established de- inaccurate estimate value. preciation schedule. taxpayer emphasizes ap The years ending inconsistency September parent In the taxable Commission through 30, 1960, disallowance, hand, September on er’s the one depreciation deductions deductions here involved claimed hand, extent char refusal, the issue five of on to allow the other liability. below, of that in the acter deductions additional exposition, adjusted set most careful first in its sold below their of assets case statute, pertinent 26 U.S.C. §: forth the maintains that basis. The *3 167(a) authorizing difficulty 1231 the is obviated § this “including duction, allow ap- a reasonable Code, inasmuch as 1954 plies but § regula obsolescence,” remedy then the only ance to net transactions this stating 1.167(a)-l al this how only partial. tion be the § Whatever is permitted dur contention, aside is to be set taxpayer’s in- lowance merits being ing life the asset the useful failed to raise as the asmuch provided not de preciated the asset court cannot claim the district this preciated a reasonable appeal. below it on this consider regulation value, 1.167 § and then judgment district court defining “salvage (a)-1(c) Af value.” summary judg- direct that reversed. held, judge quoting then these the ter govern- entered favor ment be to me view it seems obvious ment. government’s he was re concessions1 language hold, quired to that Judge WATERMAN, (dissent- regulations permitted this ing) : precisely good-faith taxpayer do what it did do. the district court on I affirm would (1963) below, F.Supp. fact that I am heartened respectfully dissent and I therefore dissenting opinion in Fri- Moore in his directing my that brothers order bourg Navigation Co. v. summary judgment in fa- enter day, joins questioning this me decided government. here, vor my brothers reached liability involving adopt in that case I In a case pay that his well-considered tax it seems to the extent analysis income Fribourg ap- strange issue that neither a rather doctrine disposi plicable to Motorlease. the Code reasonable, esti- fraud was that no issue of a useful There was reasonable, simply issue value was mate of or evasion this ease — reg computing its and the and that its method an income tax statute how proper. pursuant It does was Commissioner ulations of the any of de- that the method be read. make statute should to that below, im- was used The court any very proper unreason- or that there was clear: makes this any improper able, open court, use of ele- the time of mistaken “In adopted by motions, hearing ment in the method on these payer.” plaintiff’s admitted that