L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner
No federal income-tax opinion was found under the company name L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner. The nearest federal depreciation decision with the Darling name is Jay N. Darling v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926), which denied automobile depreciation for a nonbusiness use and found a 15-year life for a cartoonist's studio. It does not classify building components.
Educational information, not tax advice.
Updated 2026-10-14
Key takeaways
- L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner was not found as a federal income-tax opinion.
- Jay N. Darling, 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926), denied depreciation of a car used mainly outside the business and found a 15-year life for a studio.
- That decision does not classify structural components or set a MACRS recovery period.
- Educational information, not tax advice.
Case record
- Court
- U.S. Board of Tax Appeals
- Citation
- 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926) — Jay N. Darling, not L.A. Darling Co.
- Decision date
- 1926-07-29
- Facts
- Jay N. Darling, a cartoonist, petitioned the Board of Tax Appeals in Docket No. 6302. He used an automobile mainly to study and practice sculpture, a pursuit the Board found was not carried on for profit, and only occasionally in his cartooning business. In 1921 he built a studio, at a cost of $6,500, used entirely for the cartooning business and not suitable for another use. The Commissioner had also determined deductions for travel, supplies, periodicals, telephone, telegraph, office salaries, and club dues, and had treated stock received for services.
- Issue
- Whether the cartoonist could deduct operating costs and depreciation of an automobile used chiefly for nonbusiness sculptural study, and what useful life applied to the studio building used entirely in his cartooning business.
- Holding
- The automobile's operating expense and depreciation were not deductible on the evidence, because the car was used for the most part in work that was educational and not carried on for profit, and the record did not support an allocation to the cartooning business. The studio had a useful life of 15 years in that business. The Board also held that the value of 50 shares received in 1923 for services was income in that year, and that section 274(g) of the Revenue Act of 1926 left it without jurisdiction to change the Commissioner's determination of overassessments.
- Reasoning
- Depreciation and operating costs follow use in a trade or business carried on for profit. A car devoted mainly to personal training for a future occupation is not converted into a business asset by occasional business trips when the taxpayer cannot prove the business portion. A building constructed for and used only in the existing business is depreciable, and its life is a fact found from the evidence. None of those questions asks whether an attached building component is section 1245 property.
- Relevance to cost segregation
- This URL uses the inventory caption L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner. That company caption was not found as a federal income-tax opinion. Jay N. Darling is a different petitioner. The 1926 decision is historical useful-life law from before MACRS. It does not hold that store fixtures, millwork, or any other building item is 5-year or 15-year property. Cost segregation classification still starts with Hospital Corporation of America, Whiteco, Scott Paper, and Treas. Reg. §1.48-1.
The inventory title on this page is L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner. A search for a federal income-tax opinion under that company name did not locate one. L.A. Darling is known as a store-fixture manufacturer, which is a plausible reason the name was placed on a cost-segregation reading list. A manufacturer's trade name is not a holding. This page records what was found, and it does not invent a fixture case.
The federal depreciation decision that does use the Darling name is Jay N. Darling v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926). The Board of Tax Appeals decided Docket No. 6302 on July 29, 1926. The petitioner was an individual cartoonist, not a fixture company. The opinion covers compensation income, ordinary business deductions, an automobile, and a studio building. Only the last two items touch depreciation, and both are pre-MACRS useful-life questions.
Darling used one automobile mainly to study and practice sculpture so that he could change occupations later in life. The Board found that work was educational and was not carried on for profit. The car was also used occasionally in the cartooning business, but the evidence did not show how much. The Board refused a deduction for operating expense and depreciation of the automobile. Occasional business use, without a proved split, did not make the whole car a business asset.
In 1921 Darling built a studio for $6,500 and used it entirely in the cartooning business. It was not suitable for another use. From the evidence, the Board found a useful life of 15 years in that business. That finding is a life estimate for one special-purpose studio under the revenue acts of that era. It is not a recovery class. MACRS later replaced taxpayer-by-taxpayer useful lives for most tangible property with statutory classes in section 168 and Rev. Proc. 87-56. A 15-year life found in 1926 does not make a modern studio, store fixture, or partition 15-year property.
The rest of the opinion is even further from cost segregation. The Board held that the value of 50 shares received in 1923 for services was income in that year. It sustained the Commissioner's deductions for travel, supplies, periodicals, telephone, telegraph, office salaries, and club dues because the taxpayer did not prove error. Under section 274(g) of the Revenue Act of 1926, the Board said it could not change a determination of overassessment. None of those points classifies a building component.
Readers who need the classification cases should use Hospital Corporation of America v. Commissioner for the rule that investment-credit tests still separate personal property from structural components under MACRS, Whiteco Industries for the permanence factors, and Scott Paper for the limits of functional allocation of electrical cost. Those pages cite the decisions. This page exists so the inventory caption is not a blank that looks like a missing fixture holding.
CostSeg SI describes extraction, classification, estimation, and review as a proposed Super Intelligence workflow. Nothing in the 1926 Darling opinion is an example of that workflow, and this site does not claim those steps are an operating system. Educational information, not tax advice.
What the 1926 decision does not do
It does not mention L.A. Darling Company, store fixtures, or gondolas. It does not apply Treas. Reg. §1.48-1, which is a later regulation. It does not discuss section 1245 or section 1250. A study that cites "Darling" for a fixture class is citing a caption this library could not match to an opinion.
Jay N. Darling is useful only as a reminder that depreciation follows use in a profit-seeking business, and that a building's life was once a fact found case by case. Both points are background. The current recovery period for a building component is a statutory class, proved from the item's function and the authorities on the HCA page.
How to use this URL
Keep the citation tight. If a memo needs the 1926 case, name Jay N. Darling, 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926), and describe the automobile or the studio. Do not shorten that to L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner. The company caption remains the inventory title so the 187-page list stays intact. The text above the citation says the company opinion was not found.
A CPA who is given a schedule that lists "Darling" as support for 5-year or 15-year fixtures should ask for the reporter page. If the only page offered is this one, the support is the explanation that no such company opinion was found.
Verification. Opened the Board opinion summary and text on Cetient for 4 B.T.A. 499 (July 29, 1926, Docket No. 6302). No federal opinion titled L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner was located. This page does not treat the company name as the 1926 petitioner.
Sources
- 1Jay N. Darling v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 499 (1926)(opens in a new tab)
Board of Tax Appeals, Docket No. 6302, decided July 29, 1926. Not L.A. Darling Co.
- 2
- 3
- 4