Trisko v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner, a specialist in foreign economics, was employed in 1948 and prior thereto by the Federal Government and lived with his family in a home which he owned in Bethesda, Maryland. In that year he accepted a temporary position with the Federal Government in Europe. For the primary purpose of providing care and maintenance of his house he leased it for 1 year and later from month to month.
Read the full summary
Petitioner, a specialist in foreign economics, was employed in 1948 and prior thereto by the Federal Government and lived with his family in a home which he owned in Bethesda, Maryland. In that year he accepted a temporary position with the Federal Government in Europe. For the primary purpose of providing care and maintenance of his house he leased it for 1 year and later from month to month. In 1951 petitioner and his family returned to this country and he was offered and accepted another position with the Federal Government in Washington, D. C. His attempt to regain immediate occupancy of…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Kern, Judge:
The facts in the instant case are not in dispute. The question presented is whether under these facts petitioner may have the benefits provided by section 112 (n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. This subsection and pertinent provisions of respondent’s regulations are set out in the margin hereof.2
It is apparent that the general purpose of this statute was to provide relief to individual taxpayers who felt it necessary or advisable to sell their homes and used the proceeds to purchase new or substitute homes. If all the proceeds of such a sale were used in the…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Stolk v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Bayley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Thomas v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1989
- Aagaard v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Clapham v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.