U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1979

General Television, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided June 8, 1979 · Bright, Henley, Harper

598 F.2d 1148; 44 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5115; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14145 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Kenneth M. Anderson and John P. James, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant., Donald A. Dweck, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C., Clifford E. Andrews and Ann Belanger Durney, Attys., Tax Div.; M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Andrew W. Danielson, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Donrey, Inc. v. United States (8th Cir. 1987)
Newark Morning Ledger Co., as Successor to the Herald Company v. The United States of America (3d Cir. 1991)
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1991)
Finoli v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1986)
AmSouth Bancorporation and Subsidiaries v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1988)
Imperial News Co., Inc. v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court 1 ordering that the plaintiff take nothing by its cause of action and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).

For the purpose of providing some background the basic facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed returns for its tax years 1964 and 1965 in timely fashion. When the tax returns were audited the Internal Revenue determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to deduct amounts which it claimed as depreciation for its intangible assets and assessments were made for the deficiencies. The assessments were paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff thereafter timely filed claim for refund.

The Commission disallowed the plaintiff’s claims and this action was then brought to cover the amounts disallowed plus interest at the statutory rate. The only issue between the parties was whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a depreciation deduction for the intangible assets of its Delmarva-Peninsula and Diamond State CATV systems and, if so, in what amount.

Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s well reasoned opinion in General Television, *1149 Inc. v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 609 (D.Minn. 1978).

Affirmed.

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.