Pulvers v. Commissioner
case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
407 F.2d 838 (9th Cir.
1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
taxpayers challenged an order of the United States Tax Court, which
affirmed appellee tax commissioner's determination that appellants
might have suffered a fluctuation in value of their property, but
incurred no actual loss and therefore could not take a deduction for
other casualty loss on their federal income tax return when nearby
houses were destroyed by a landslide.
FACTS: Appellant taxpayers attempted to take a deduction on their federal income tax returns for an "other casualty loss" when their property values fluctuated because several nearby homes were destroyed in a landslide. Appellee tax commissioner determined that appellants' had suffered no actual loss and therefore were not entitled to the deduction. The tax court affirmed appellee's determination, and appellants challenged the ruling. The court affirmed and held that congress did not intend "other casualty loss" to include such claims, otherwise the consequences would be limitless. The court held that the loss was hypothetical and that congress did not intend such a construction of the statute.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed an order of the tax court which affirmed appellee tax commissioner's determination that appellant taxpayer's could not take a deduction for other casualty loss on their federal income tax return when nearby houses were destroyed by a landslide because appellants incurred no actual loss and a mere fluctuation in their properly values was not intended to be covered under the statute.
FACTS: Appellant taxpayers attempted to take a deduction on their federal income tax returns for an "other casualty loss" when their property values fluctuated because several nearby homes were destroyed in a landslide. Appellee tax commissioner determined that appellants' had suffered no actual loss and therefore were not entitled to the deduction. The tax court affirmed appellee's determination, and appellants challenged the ruling. The court affirmed and held that congress did not intend "other casualty loss" to include such claims, otherwise the consequences would be limitless. The court held that the loss was hypothetical and that congress did not intend such a construction of the statute.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed an order of the tax court which affirmed appellee tax commissioner's determination that appellant taxpayer's could not take a deduction for other casualty loss on their federal income tax return when nearby houses were destroyed by a landslide because appellants incurred no actual loss and a mere fluctuation in their properly values was not intended to be covered under the statute.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment