Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co.

• 1973 • 418 U.S. 1 • Burger Court
In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co., 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer must capitalize and depreciate over time the cost of its own labor and equipment used in construction projects rather than deducting these costs as current business expenses. The Idaho Power Company had been constructing transmission lines while also using them for their regular operations, arguing that they should be able to deduct from their taxes both direct costs...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1973
Docket: 73-263
418 U.S. 1
94 S. Ct. 2757
41 L. Ed. 2d 535
1974 U.S. LEXIS 2
Argued: Feb 27, 1974

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co., 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer must capitalize and depreciate over time the cost of its own labor and equipment used in construction projects rather than deducting these costs as current business expenses. The Idaho Power Company had been constructing transmission lines while also using them for their regular operations, arguing that they should be able to deduct from their taxes both direct costs (materials) and indirect costs (labor). However, the IRS disagreed with this interpretation of tax law. The court sided with the IRS on a 6-1 decision stating that because these were capital expenditures which provided long-term benefits to Idaho Power Company, they could not be deducted as ordinary business expenses but instead needed to be capitalized and depreciated over time.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co., Justice Blackmun argued that construction equipment used by a utility company in the process of improving its facilities should not be considered as "property used in the trade or business" under Section 167 of the Internal Revenue Code, and therefore, it should not be eligible for depreciation deductions. He contended that this interpretation was consistent with legislative intent and prior court rulings which had limited such deductions to properties directly involved in income production. According to him, allowing such broad interpretations would open up possibilities for abuse where businesses could claim tax benefits on virtually any property indirectly related to their operations. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress had already provided investment credits for these types of assets separately from depreciation allowances; thus implying they did not intend them to also qualify under Section 167.

Opinion written by Justice HABlackmun
Decided: Jun 24, 1974
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms