Dubitzky v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, expropriation of a portion of the taxpayer's property under a general town-planning ordinance as a condition for the rezoning of the remainder of the property into building sites did not constitute a real property tax within the meaning of sec. 164(a)(1).
1Opinion of the Court
Quealy, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies for the taxable years 1963 and 1964 in the amounts of $33,357.81 and $57,349.03, respectively.
Certain issues having been agreed to by the parties, the sole question remaining for determination is whether for the taxable year 1964 petitioners are entitled to a deduction under section 164(a) (1) 1 on account of the transfer of certain real property and the payment of $9,540 to the Municipality of Nathanya, Israel.
FINDINGS OP PACT
Some of the facts were stipulated and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Aaron and Simcha Dubitzky are husband…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Biddle v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Perlmutter v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Holeproof Hosiery Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Bloxton v. State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Principal Life Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Dubitzky v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973