TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

E. Taylor Chewning and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

E. Taylor CHEWNING and Caroline Chewning, Husband and Wife, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

E. Taylor Chewning & Caroline Chewning, Husband & Wife v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 363 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 22, 1966
Docket
No. 10394
Judges
Haynsworth, Bryan, Bell
Citations
363 F.2d 44118 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 51031966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5729

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The petitioners seek review of the Tax Court’s decision 1

that their uninsured loss from the destruction by storm of boxwood bushes located at their residence is not deductible as an ordinary loss under section 165(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but must be applied pursuant to section 1231 of the Code in reduction of the petitioners’ gains from sales of property used in their trade or business.

We are persuaded by the able opinion of Judge Atkins that the Tax Court was correct in its interpretation of the Code and that we must reject the reasoning of Maurer v. United States, 284 F.2d 122 (10 Cir. 1960) in favor of that of Morrison v. United States, 355 F.2d 218 (6 Cir. 1966). While the taxpayers’ position was not without some basis in the language of section 1231 prior to the 1958 amendment (Maurer applied the statute as it existed before the amendment), we think that amendment 2

clearly indicated Congress’ intention that the taxpayers’ loss should not be excluded from treatment under section 1231. The judgment of the Tax Court is therefore Affirmed.

1

. The Tax Court’s opinion is reported at 44 T.C. 678 .

2

. See the Finance Committee Report to the Technical Amendments Act of 1958 (S.Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 74, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1958, p. 4791.)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 11967: 11968: 11969: 11971: 11973: 11974: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Maurer v. United States, 284 F.2d 122 (10th Cir. 1960) 15
Chewning v. Comm'r, 44 T.C. 678 (Tax Ct. 1965) 8
Morrison v. United States, 355 F.2d 218 (6th Cir. 1966) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list