Allen v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Circumstances surrounding the loss of petitioner's diamond brooch, held, not to justify a finding of fact that the loss was due to theft. No loss is deductible under section 23 (e) (3), I. R. C.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Van Fossan, Judge:
On the above facts, petitioner asks us to find that she sustained a loss by theft in the amount of $2,400, the value of the brooch in question. (Section 23 (e) (3).) This, we are unable to do.
There is no question as to the credibility of the witnesses and, excepting the conclusions and inferences of fact, there is no dispute about the evidence. Stripped to essentials, the facts are that petitioner owned a brooch which she lost in some manner while visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. She does not, and cannot, prove that the pin was stolen. All we know…
2Cited by50 opinions
- Mendes v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2003
- Elliott v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Jones v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Bakewell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Louisa B. Gunther Farcasanu v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.