The question presented is whether a taxpayer may take a depreciation deduction for the year of sale of a depreciable asset in excess of the amount by which the adjusted basis of the asset at the beginning of the year of sale exceeds the amount realized upon the sale. In other words, may a taxpayer, for example, claim depreciation in excess of $250 when the adjusted basis of the asset at the beginning of the taxable year is $1000 and the asset is sold during the taxable year for $750 at a time when its adjusted basis is $400 in accordance with an already established scale of straight-line depreciation. We hold that in such a case the deduction would be limited to $250.
The Motorlease Corporation, the taxpayer, is a Connecticut corporation engaged in leasing automobiles. After employing them in the leasing operation for a period of from one to two years, Mo-torlease generally disposes of the automobiles either by sale or trade-in on new automobiles. In three of the years here relevant more than 300 automobiles were disposed of by sale.
Motorlease depreciated the automobiles on a straight-line basis, establishing a depreciation schedule of 2% percent per month which incorporated an estimate of the useful life of the vehicles in the leasing operation and an estimate of their probable salvage value at the termination of that useful life.
The automobile sales here relevant were of two types: first, where the sale price exceeded the adjusted basis — cost less depreciation already taken — of the automobile at the beginning of the taxable year; and second, where the sale price, though less than the adjusted basis at the beginning of the taxable year, exceeded the adjusted basis of the automobile at the date of sale as computed pro rata according to the established depreciation schedule.
In the taxable years ending September 30, 1957 through September 30, 1960, the taxpayer claimed depreciation deductions for these automobiles in the full amount allowable under its established depreciation schedule, disregarding the amounts received upon sale. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed as depreciation deductions the amounts in excess of the amount by which the adjusted basis of the automobile at the beginning of the year of sale exceeded the sale price. After payment of the deficiencies, and upon rejection of the required administrative claims for refund, the taxpayer brought suit for refund in the District of Connecticut. On cross motions for summary judgment, Judge Blumenfeld granted the taxpayer’s motion. 215 F.Supp. 356 (D.Conn.1963). On the authority of, and for the reasons given in Fribourg Navigation Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 335 F.2d 15, decided today, we reverse the judgment of the district court and direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the Commissioner.
The taxpayer here relies upon essentially the same Code sections and regulations as were relied upon by the taxpayer in Fribourg. But neither the Code nor the regulations are dispositive of the issue. The question rather is which construction of these sections best comports with the congressional design in establishing the depreciation provisions of the Internal Revenue laws. The transmutation- of ordinary Jncome into capital gams_Jii_n.u.fi_con sen u enc<=T~which these p:royigiuns-eertainiy~were-mot designed to_eixcoiixage. Their design is to prevent a loss to the taxpayer through the unrecovered cost of depreciable assets, not to provide the taxpayer with a profit over and above that cost. Where it may be determined to an absolute certaifity-thaF sucíTa nrofit will result from the allowance of further depreciation, as is thé casehere, there is no basis in reason or policy to permit the taxpayer to take advantage of what has proved to be an inaccurate estimate of salvage value.
The taxpayer emphasizes the apparent inconsistency in the Commissioner’s disallowance, on the one hand, of the depreciation deductions here involved and *619his refusal, on the other hand, to allow additional depreciation deductions in the case of assets sold below their adjusted basis. The government maintains that this difficulty is obviated by § 1231 of the 1954 Code, but inasmuch as § 1231 applies only to net transactions this remedy is only partial. Whatever may be the merits of the taxpayer’s contention, inasmuch as the taxpayer failed to raise this claim in the district court we cannot consider it on this appeal.
The judgment of the district court is reversed. We direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the government.