Appeal of Oransky

Board of Tax Appeals

Appeal of Oransky

1 B.T.A. 1239

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided May 26, 1925·No. Docket No. 2061·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[1240] OPINION.

Morris:

In the Appeal of Fred J. Hughes, 1 B. T. A. 944, we held that the rule of ejusdem generis is applicable in the construction of the words “other casualty ” as used in section 214 (a) (6) of the Bevenue Act of 1918. As the taxpayer is claiming a deduction in this appeal under an identical provision of the Bevenue Act of 1921, and the casualty was not of a character similar to a fire, storm, or a shipwreck, that decision is controlling in this appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1240] OPINION.

Morris:

In the Appeal of Fred J. Hughes, 1 B. T. A. 944, we held that the rule of ejusdem generis is applicable in the construction of the words “other casualty ” as used in section 214 (a) (6) of the Bevenue Act of 1918. As the taxpayer is claiming a deduction in this appeal under an identical provision of the Bevenue Act of 1921, and the casualty was not of a character similar to a fire, storm, or a shipwreck, that decision is controlling in this appeal.

Appeal of Oransky, 1 B.T.A. 1239 (bta 1925).

Pincite

1 B.T.A. 1239 (Appeal of Oransky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related