Elliott v. Commissioner

1971 T.C. Memo. 239, 30 T.C.M. 1030, 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91
United States Tax Court·Decided September 21, 1971·No. Docket No. 616-70.·Unpublished

Opinion

Owen D. Elliott and Kathryn Elliott v. Commissioner.
Elliott v. Commissioner
Docket No. 616-70.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1971-239; 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91; 30 T.C.M. (CCH) 1030; T.C.M. (RIA) 71239;
September 21, 1971, Filed
Owen D. Elliott, pro se, 614 Dolphin Pl., Corpus Christi, Tex. Daniel A. Taylor, Jr., for*92 the respondent.

FAY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FAY, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in the income tax liability of petitioners for the taxable year 1967 in the amount of $762.38. The issues presented are whether a loss incurred on the sale of a personal residence is deductible as an ordinary loss under the provisions of section 165, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 1 or whether the respondent is bound by an erroneous interpretation of the law found in the respondent's own publication.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

The petitioners, Owen D. Elliott and Kathryn Elliott, filed a joint return for the year 1967 with the district director of internal revenue, Austin, Texas. The petitioners' legal residence on the date of filing of the petition herein was 614 Dolphin Place, Corpus Christi, Texas. Petitioner Kathryn Elliott is a party herein only by reason of having filed a joint return with her husband, *93 Owen D. Elliott, and the latter will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.

On or about August 1, 1959, the petitioner purchased a house located at 1015 Walnut Street, Irving, Texas. The cost of this property was $24,990. The petitioner used this property as his personal residence until May 25, 1967. At that time the petitioner sold the house for a gross sales price of 1031 $22,500. Expenses of the sale were $2,236.20 and the petitioner's loss on the sale of said house was $4,726.20. In filling out his Federal income tax return for the year 1967, the petitioner referred to the Treasury Department publication entitled "1967 Form 1040 Instructions for preparing your Federal Income Tax Return." This publication on page 6 states:

Line 5 - Sale or exchange of property (Schedule D). - If you sell your house, securities, or any other kind of property, use Schedule D (Form 1040) to figure your gains or losses. Enter on this line the amount shown on line 4, Part IV, page 2, Schedule D (Form 1040).

Relying on these instructions, the petitioner deducted the $4,726.20 loss as an ordinary loss from the sale of his personal residence. Respondent in his notice of deficiency increased*94 the petitioner's taxable income to reflect the disallowance of this loss.

Opinion

The issues in the case before us are whether a loss from the sale of a personal residence is deductible, or in the alternative, whether the respondent is bound by an erroneous interpretation of the law found in respondent's own publication. Section 262 provides that "no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses" unless expressly allowed by some other provision of the law. Section 1.262-1(b)(4), 2 Income Tax Regs., holds that losses upon the disposition of property held for living purposes are the type of personal expenses which are not deductible.

A deduction for losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise is granted under section 165(a). 3Section 165(c)(1) and (2) limits the deduction*95 for individuals to those losses incurred either in a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit. 4

The undisputed testimony in this case shows that the petitioner used the house as his personal residence from the day of purchase through*96 the day of sale. He does not contend that this property was at any time held for the production of income.

The law is well established that a deduction is specifically not allowable under section 165(a) for the loss on the sale of a personal residence. See James E. Austin, 35 T.C. 221 (1960), affd. 298 F. 2d 583 (C.A. 2, 1962); Harold K. Meyer, 34 T.C. 528 (1960); Gilbert Wilkes, 17 T.C. 865 (1951); Richard P. Koehn, 16 T.C. 1378 (1951); and

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

Elliott v. Commissioner, 1971 T.C. Memo. 239, 30 T.C.M. 1030, 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91 (tax 1971).

1971 T.C. Memo. 239 (Elliott v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner
353 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Lakeside Irr. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.
128 F.2d 418 (Fifth Circuit, 1942)
Koehn v. Commissioner
16 T.C. 1378 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Wilkes v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 865 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Austin v. Commissioner
35 T.C. 221 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Lakeside Irrigation Co. v. Commissioner
41 B.T.A. 892 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)
Martin's Auto Trimming, Inc. v. Riddell
175 F. Supp. 836 (S.D. California, 1959)
Bookwalter v. Mayer
345 F.2d 476 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)