E. Taylor Chewning and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fourth Circuit

E. Taylor Chewning and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

363 F.2d 441, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5103, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5729

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1966

Docket10394

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 441 (E. Taylor Chewning and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E. Taylor Chewning and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 363 F.2d 441, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5103, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5729 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioners seek review of the Tax Court’s decision 1 that their uninsured loss from the destruction by storm of boxwood bushes located at their residence is not deductible as an ordinary loss under section 165(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but must be applied pursuant to section 1231 of the Code in reduction of the petitioners’ gains from sales of property used in their trade or business.

We are persuaded by the able opinion of Judge Atkins that the Tax Court was correct in its interpretation of the Code and that we must reject the reasoning of Maurer v. United States, 284 F.2d 122 (10 Cir. 1960) in favor of that of Morrison v. United States, 355 F.2d 218 (6 Cir. 1966). While the taxpayers’ position was not without some basis in the language of section 1231 prior to the 1958 amendment (Maurer applied the statute as it existed before the amendment), we think that amendment 2 clearly indicated Congress’ intention that the taxpayers’ loss should not be excluded from treatment under section 1231. The judgment of the Tax Court is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. The Tax Court’s opinion is reported at 44 T.C. 678.

2

. See the Finance Committee Report to the Technical Amendments Act of 1958 (S.Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 74, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1958, p. 4791.)

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

PER CURIAM:

The petitioners seek review of the Tax Court’s decision 1 that their uninsured loss from the destruction by storm of boxwood bushes located at their residence is not deductible as an ordinary loss under section 165(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but must be applied pursuant to section 1231 of the Code in reduction of the petitioners’ gains from sales of property used in their trade or business.

We are persuaded by the able opinion of Judge Atkins that the Tax Court was correct in its interpretation of the Code and that we must reject the reasoning of Maurer v. United States, 284 F.2d 122 (10 Cir. 1960) in favor of that of Morrison v. United States, 355 F.2d 218 (6 Cir. 1966). While the taxpayers’ position was not without some basis in the language of section 1231 prior to the 1958 amendment (Maurer applied the statute as it existed before the amendment), we think that amendment 2 clearly indicated Congress’ intention that the taxpayers’ loss should not be excluded from treatment under section 1231. The judgment of the Tax Court is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. The Tax Court’s opinion is reported at 44 T.C. 678.

2

. See the Finance Committee Report to the Technical Amendments Act of 1958 (S.Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 74, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1958, p. 4791.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 441, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5103, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-taylor-chewning-and-caroline-chewning-husband-and-wife-v-commissioner-ca4-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack