Hill v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Taxpayer and cotenant were the owners of a parcel of real estate in the State of Michigan which they had mortgaged to secure funds to pay for the land. In 1934 taxpayer and his cotenant were delinquent in their payments and the mortgage was foreclosed.
Read the full summary
Taxpayer and cotenant were the owners of a parcel of real estate in the State of Michigan which they had mortgaged to secure funds to pay for the land. In 1934 taxpayer and his cotenant were delinquent in their payments and the mortgage was foreclosed. At the sheriff's sale the property was purchased by the owners of the mortgage for an amount which equaled the unpaid mortgage indebtedness, interest, taxes, and costs and the purchasers received a sheriff's deed for the property. Several months later, in the same year, the taxpayer and his wife executed a quitclaim deed to the purchasers at…
1Dissent
Turner,
dissenting: In my opinion the conclusion of the Board that the loss herein was not a loss sustained “upon the sale * * * of a capital asset” and therefore not subject to the limitations of section 117 of the Revenue Act is directly contrary to the plain wording of the statute. Although I have previously expressed my dissent to such a conclusion, in C. Griffith Warfield, 38 B. T. A. 907, and H. L. Rust, Jr., 38 B. T. A. 910, which on this point appear to be indistinguishable from the instant case, I trust that a restatement and amplification of my views may not be regarded as out of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- White v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. GordonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Helvering v. Chester N. Weaver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.