Oransky v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Oransky v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 1239, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2596

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided May 26, 1925·No. Docket No. 2061.·Published

Opinion

[1240] OPINION.

Morris:

In the Appeal of Fred J. Hughes, 1 B. T. A. 944, we held that the rule of ejusdem generis is applicable in the construction of the words “other casualty ” as used in section 214 (a) (6) of the Bevenue Act of 1918. As the taxpayer is claiming a deduction in this appeal under an identical provision of the Bevenue Act of 1921, and the casualty was not of a character similar to a fire, storm, or a shipwreck, that decision is controlling in this appeal.

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

[1240] OPINION.

Morris:

In the Appeal of Fred J. Hughes, 1 B. T. A. 944, we held that the rule of ejusdem generis is applicable in the construction of the words “other casualty ” as used in section 214 (a) (6) of the Bevenue Act of 1918. As the taxpayer is claiming a deduction in this appeal under an identical provision of the Bevenue Act of 1921, and the casualty was not of a character similar to a fire, storm, or a shipwreck, that decision is controlling in this appeal.

Oransky v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 1239, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2596 (bta 1925).

Pincite

1 B.T.A. 1239 (Oransky v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related