Greenbaum v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Greenbaum v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 75, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2948

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 1927

DocketDocket No. 10692.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 B.T.A. 75 (Greenbaum v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greenbaum v. Commissioner, 8 B.T.A. 75, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2948 (bta 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

StbRNHAGen :

The petitioner claims under section 214 (a) (6) of the Revenue Act of 1921.¹ In our opinion he has not brought himself within the provision invoked. There is a clear distinction between an expense of maintenance and repair, whether arising through ordinary wear and tear or through extraordinary damage, and a loss of the [76]*76property itself. All householders are called upon to sustain the expenses of repairs. A frozen water pipe is a common occurrence. When it takes place in a business building the cost of repair is an ordinary and necessary expense. But since similar household repairs come within the category of “ personal, living, or family expenses,” their deduction is expressly prohibited by section 215 (a). It can not be supposed that such prohibition is to be circumvented by calling the outlay a loss. In such a sense every outlay is a loss.

It is plain from the language of section 214 (a) (6) that the losses contemplated are losses of the property itself and not the cost of repair or replacement; for the measure of the loss is either the cost of the property or its value on March 1, 1913, if acquired prior thereto. This is inconsistent with the idea that the loss is to be either measured or characterized by the cost of repair or replacement. In the present case even if the petitioner were correct in theory he would necessarily fail because there is no evidence either of cost or of the March 1, 1913, value of the property lost.

Judgment will he entered for the respondent.

Considered by Lansdon and Arxtndedl.

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

OPINION.

StbRNHAGen :

The petitioner claims under section 214 (a) (6) of the Revenue Act of 1921.¹ In our opinion he has not brought himself within the provision invoked. There is a clear distinction between an expense of maintenance and repair, whether arising through ordinary wear and tear or through extraordinary damage, and a loss of the [76]*76property itself. All householders are called upon to sustain the expenses of repairs. A frozen water pipe is a common occurrence. When it takes place in a business building the cost of repair is an ordinary and necessary expense. But since similar household repairs come within the category of “ personal, living, or family expenses,” their deduction is expressly prohibited by section 215 (a). It can not be supposed that such prohibition is to be circumvented by calling the outlay a loss. In such a sense every outlay is a loss.

It is plain from the language of section 214 (a) (6) that the losses contemplated are losses of the property itself and not the cost of repair or replacement; for the measure of the loss is either the cost of the property or its value on March 1, 1913, if acquired prior thereto. This is inconsistent with the idea that the loss is to be either measured or characterized by the cost of repair or replacement. In the present case even if the petitioner were correct in theory he would necessarily fail because there is no evidence either of cost or of the March 1, 1913, value of the property lost.

Judgment will he entered for the respondent.

Considered by Lansdon and Arxtndedl.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 B.T.A. 75, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenbaum-v-commissioner-bta-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack