Meyer v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. In 1954, petitioners, for family convenience, purchased residential property in a new subdivision in Spokane called Chester Hills. At that time they had under construction a residence more expensive than the one purchased which they expected to occupy when completed. They expected to make a profit on the residence purchased in the new subdivision when it should subsequently be sold.
Read the full summary
1. In 1954, petitioners, for family convenience, purchased residential property in a new subdivision in Spokane called Chester Hills. At that time they had under construction a residence more expensive than the one purchased which they expected to occupy when completed. They expected to make a profit on the residence purchased in the new subdivision when it should subsequently be sold. They expected, however, to reside in this new residence until the one then under construction was completed, and this they did. Just prior to the completion of their more expensive residence they sold the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Black, Judge:
The first issue we have to decide is whether petitioners are entitled to deduct their loss on the sale of their Chester Trills residence in 1955. There is no dispute that they did have a loss on such sale and there is no dispute as to the amount of the loss.
The applicable statute and regulations are printed in the margin.1 We think the Commissioner’s determination must be sustained under the applicable statute and regulations.
It is true, we think, that when petitioner purchased the Chester Hills property in 1954 he fully expected to make a profit on its ultimate sale. He…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilkes v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- Koehn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
3Cited by3 opinions
- Taylor v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1998
- Louis S. Shuman & Sandra Shuman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2018
- Meyer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960