Farber v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, sudden and unexpected damage to a lawn, trees, and shrubs caused by the application of a weedkilling chemical product inadvertently recommended to petitioner by a retail supplier was a "casualty" within the meaning of sec. 165(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954. Amount of deductible casualty loss determined.
1Opinion of the Court
DawsoN, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,201.81 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for the year 1968.
Respondent has conceded bliat the petitioners are entitled to a charitable contribution deduction of $665.80. At issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to a casualty loss deduction under the provisions of section 165(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954,1 after the application of a weedkilling chemical product known as Cytrol, inadvertently recommended 'by a retail supplier, resulted in the destruction of part of the lawn, trees, and shrubs around their personal residence. If such loss…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Helvering v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Heyn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Harmon v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- White v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Austin Clapp, Gloria Clapp, Stuart P. Clapp, and Virginia M. Clapp v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- HIGBEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUEUnited States Tax Court · 2001
- Lamphere v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Maher v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Austin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Batson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.