Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hulet P. Smith and Loma M. Smith

Ninth Circuit

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hulet P. Smith and Loma M. Smith

397 F.2d 804, 22 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5096, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6222

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 1968

Docket22227_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 397 F.2d 804 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hulet P. Smith and Loma M. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hulet P. Smith and Loma M. Smith, 397 F.2d 804, 22 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5096, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6222 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayers, husband and wife, owned a home in Arcadia, California. They acquired a new home a few hundred miles away and moved to it, never intending again to use the Arcadia property as a residence. It was put up for sale, and the Tax Court found that the taxpayers, during the period of time from when they vacated the home until its eventual sale, held it “for the production of income” within the meaning of sections 167(a) (2) and 212(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Upon the basis of this finding, it was held that the taxpayers properly deducted maintenance expense, as well as depreciation, for that period. See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 120 (1966), acq., 1967-1 Cum.Bull. 2.

The Government makes a strong case for reversal. See Recent Developments, Hulet P. Smith, 66 Mich.L.Rev. 562 (1968). Unusual circumstances are present, however, and we are not persuaded that the Tax Court’s factual finding and its consequent conclusions are clearly wrong.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayers, husband and wife, owned a home in Arcadia, California. They acquired a new home a few hundred miles away and moved to it, never intending again to use the Arcadia property as a residence. It was put up for sale, and the Tax Court found that the taxpayers, during the period of time from when they vacated the home until its eventual sale, held it “for the production of income” within the meaning of sections 167(a) (2) and 212(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Upon the basis of this finding, it was held that the taxpayers properly deducted maintenance expense, as well as depreciation, for that period. See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 120 (1966), acq., 1967-1 Cum.Bull. 2.

The Government makes a strong case for reversal. See Recent Developments, Hulet P. Smith, 66 Mich.L.Rev. 562 (1968). Unusual circumstances are present, however, and we are not persuaded that the Tax Court’s factual finding and its consequent conclusions are clearly wrong.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 F.2d 804, 22 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5096, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-hulet-p-smith-and-loma-m-smith-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack