Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner

383 U.S. 272, 86 S. Ct. 862, 15 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1966)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner

United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 272, 86 S. Ct. 862, 15 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1966)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

On December 21, 1955, Fribourg Navigation Company (Fribourg) (plaintiff) purchased a used ship for approximately $470,000. Before Fribourg purchased the ship, the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) sent Fribourg a letter explaining that the IRS would allow Fribourg to calculate depreciation of the ship over a straight line for three years, with a salvage value of $54,000. Fribourg’s basis in the ship would be adjusted annually to factor in the depreciation. Fribourg filed its 1955 and 1956 income-tax returns with depreciation deductions based on the IRS’s letter. At the start of 1957, the ship’s adjusted basis was approximately $327,000. Due to a series of events related to the Suez Canal, cargo ships were in high demand in 1957, and Fribourg sold its ship for $695,500. By 1958, ships like the one Fribourg had sold were being scrapped for salvage amounts close to the $54,000 that the IRS had initially predicted when calculating Fribourg’s depreciation deductions. On its 1957 income-tax return, Fribourg deducted the depreciation on the ship according to the IRS’s initial calculation. Fribourg also listed a gain of approximately $505,000, the sale price of the ship minus the depreciation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) disallowed the depreciation deduction because the ship’s sale price exceeded its adjusted basis at the beginning of the year. The Commissioner based his conclusion on a regulation that stated that the reasonableness of a depreciation deduction should be made based on the condition of the asset at the end of the period for which the deduction is claimed. Because Fribourg knew that the ship had been sold for more than its adjusted basis, the Commissioner reasoned that Fribourg knew the ship had not depreciated the anticipated amount. The Commissioner also reasoned that the increase was due to conditions that were normally associated with capital gain. The tax court and court of appeals upheld the Commissioner’s disallowance of the deduction. Fribourg appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership