Grant v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Held, upon the evidence, that an extensive deep sinking of land caused by a subterranean disturbance is a casualty within the meaning of section 214(a)(6) of the Revenue Act of 1926. 2. The difference between the values of the property before and after the casualty constitutes the loss due to the casualty; the basis for the deduction of this loss is the cost of the property (sec. 204(a) and sec. 214(a)(6), Revenue Act of 1926) and, proportionately, this difference is to…
Read the full summary
1. Held, upon the evidence, that an extensive deep sinking of land caused by a subterranean disturbance is a casualty within the meaning of section 214(a)(6) of the Revenue Act of 1926. 2. The difference between the values of the property before and after the casualty constitutes the loss due to the casualty; the basis for the deduction of this loss is the cost of the property (sec. 204(a) and sec. 214(a)(6), Revenue Act of 1926) and, proportionately, this difference is to the whole of the value before the casualty as the amount of the deductible loss is to the whole of the cost. 3. Land and…
1Opinion of the Court
*1034OPINION.
McMahon :
The petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction for loss sustained during the year 1921 and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, under section 214 (a) (6) of the Revenue Act of 1926.1
The principal question to be determined is whether the sinking of petitioner’s property described in our findings is within the meaning of the phrase “ or other casualty.” (Emphasis supplied.)
As appears from the statement attached to the notice of deficiency, the respondent in determining the asserted deficiency “conceded” that the petitioner was “entitled to a deduction * *…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Mason v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad v. Pullman Southern Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Prussian v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. MescallSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Matheson v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Heyn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Rosenberg v. Commisssioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952
- United States v. KoshlandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Buttram v. JonesDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1943
- Broido v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.