Jacob J. Cooley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

Jacob J. Cooley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

283 F.2d 945, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5940, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3206

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 25, 1960·No. 26195_1·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In January 1952 the taxpayer purchased from General Motors Corporation thirteen Chevrolet automobiles on the express condition that he would donate them to the United Jewish Appeal for export to the State of Israel for use by disabled veterans. Their cost to him was $17,581“.72 but their fair market value at retail, if he had been privileged to sell them, was $24,700. He claimed the latter sum as a charitable deduction under Section 23 (o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. The Tax Court limited this deduction to what he paid for the automobiles. This produced the deficiency in his 1952 income tax of which he complains.

We think the decision is correct and are content to affirm on Judge Raum’s succinct opinion. 33 T.C. 223. The District Court case on which petitioner relies, Champlin v. Broderick, Administra-trix, 38 A.F.T.R. 1533 is not in point. There the donor of the property given to charity was not subject to a restrictive agreement depriving him of the privilege of selling it.

Affirmed on opinion below.

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

PER CURIAM.

In January 1952 the taxpayer purchased from General Motors Corporation thirteen Chevrolet automobiles on the express condition that he would donate them to the United Jewish Appeal for export to the State of Israel for use by disabled veterans. Their cost to him was $17,581“.72 but their fair market value at retail, if he had been privileged to sell them, was $24,700. He claimed the latter sum as a charitable deduction under Section 23 (o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. The Tax Court limited this deduction to what he paid for the automobiles. This produced the deficiency in his 1952 income tax of which he complains.

We think the decision is correct and are content to affirm on Judge Raum’s succinct opinion. 33 T.C. 223. The District Court case on which petitioner relies, Champlin v. Broderick, Administra-trix, 38 A.F.T.R. 1533 is not in point. There the donor of the property given to charity was not subject to a restrictive agreement depriving him of the privilege of selling it.

Affirmed on opinion below.

Jacob J. Cooley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 283 F.2d 945, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5940, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3206 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

283 F.2d 945 (Jacob J. Cooley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related