Miller v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Income -- Deduction -- Loss -- Theft -- Section 23 (e) (3). -- Amount of loss determined and allowed under section 23 (e) (3) where owners paid a contractor and he feloniously absconded with the money after doing only a small part of the work of constructing their residence.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock, Judge:
The evidence shows that the petitioners paid Landstrom $7,500 as a part payment on a dwelling which he was to construct for them; he absconded with some of their money after erecting on the premises an incomplete structure which was not worth anything like $7,500; his act was a felonious one under the laws of Pennsylvania; and the petitioners thereby sustained a loss. The Commissioner contends that the petitioners sustained no loss, but his reasons therefor are not persuasive. Cf. Leichner & Jordan Co., 4 B. T. A. 133. He also contends that the petitioners have failed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
3Cited by16 opinions
- Edwards v. BrombergCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
- Norton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Ander v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Burns v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- Martin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.