Ruoff v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Attorney expenses incurred to contest Alien Property Custodian's seizure of petitioner's income-producing property, held, comparable to costs of defense of title and, as such, capital expenditures not deductible under section 23 (a) (2), I. R. C. 1939.
1DissentForresteR, J.
I must respectfully disagree with the majority opinion which I feel has used the easy and here false touchstone of “defense of title” to arrive at a result which ignores realities.
I feel that the Attorney General’s actions in this case did not take or question Mrs. RuofE’s title as such — indeed they confirmed and recognized it, much in the nature of a condemnation proceeding— but did question her activities and therefore her status. It is true that had she done nothing or had she defended against the vesting-order unsuccessfully, her title would have passed to the Attorney General, but the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Deputy, Administratrix v. Du PontSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Commissioner v. HeiningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Kornhauser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Trust Under the Will of Bingham v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Stoehr v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.