Legal Opinion
Arthur B. Maurer and Mary E. Ford Maurer v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided November 4, 1960No. 6376PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MURRAH, Chief Judge.
In the taxable year 1954, the taxpayer-appellants suffered certain losses due to severe drought and abnormal weather conditions. Several trees and valuable plantings on their residential grounds were killed and there was other physical: damage. The losses were not compensated for by insurance, or otherwise, and: they now seek to deduct them as ordinary losses under Title 26 U.S.C. § 165. 1 The Commissioner denied the deduction and assessed a deficiency based upon his construction and application of Title 26 U.S. C. § 1231, 2 and the pertinent treasury regulation, §…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Commissioner v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Boehm v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Helvering v. WinmillSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cammarano v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pennsylvania Power & Light Company and Subsidiary Companies v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
- Broido v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Killebrew v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1964
- In Re CraddockCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Chewning v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.