Beus v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Petitioners did not sustain an allowable loss from abandonment of an irrigation system during the taxable year. 2. Certain amounts paid pursuant to a lease-option agreement did not constitute rentals. 3. A part of the deficiency of petitioners W. J. and Leone Beus is due to negligence or to their intentional disregard of rules and regulations within the meaning of section 293 (a), I. R. C. 1939.
1Opinion of the Court
Bruce, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioners’ income tax as follows:
[[Image here]]
Of the several adjustments made by respondent only three remain in dispute. The issues for decision are as follows:(1) Whether in -1952 the petitioners sustained a loss of $20,000 with respect to an irrigation system.(2) Whether the respondent erred in determining that the amounts of $6,500 and $8,500 paid in 1952 by W. J. Beus and Beus Bros, partnership, respectively, pursuant to the terms of a certain “Farm Lease — With Option to Buy” were not paid as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Haggard v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- D. M. Haggard and Nila Haggard v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Mills v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- W. B. Davis & Son, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Woody v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Martin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Citron v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- New England Tank Industries, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Quartzite Stone Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- Starr v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.