Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 B.T.A. 71

Hall v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided April 18, 1929

United States Board of Tax Appeals · decided 1929-04-18

- The extent of the loss sustained by petitioners' decedent in 1921 by reason of damage to his country estate from a violent ice storm determined, and the amount so found held to be subject to deduction from gross income of such decedent for that year under section 214(a)(6) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

Relies on Davis v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1980

1 federal appellate ·

401929193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*72OPINION.

Tkussell:

¶2By section 214 (a) (6) of the Revenue Act of 1921 it is provided that in computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:

(6) Losses sustained during the taxable year of property not connected with trade or business if arising from fires, storm, shipwreck or other casualty or from theft, if not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. * * * In case of losses arising from destruction of or damage to property, where the property so destroyed or damaged was acquired before March 1, 1913, the deduction shall be computed upon the basis of its fair price or value as of March 1, 1913.

¶3Petitioners have appealed from respondent’s disallowance of a deduction from gross income taken by decedent of $15,000 for the taxable year 1921 as damage sustained in that year to his country estate, as a result of an ice storm.

¶4The question we have here is one of fact, the extent of the loss in value of the estate due to the damage sustained. Whipple v. United States, 25 Fed. (2d) 520; Mary Cheney Dcuuis, 16 B. T. A. 65. Upon this question the evidence introduced by the petitioners is convincing. The record shows by the testimony of competent witnesses *73that the damage done was very extensive, that the estate was a very valuable one, worth in excess of $150,000, and that a large portion of its value lay in the beauty and perfection of its ornamental trees and shrubbery. These witnesses compute the damage at $15,000, as the difference between the reasonable sale value of the place immediately before and after the storm, there being no change in the market, and such decrease being due wholly to the damage done. This testimony is clear, reasonable, and well sustained, and no evidence was introduced by respondent contradicting it in any respect and we accept these facts as sufficiently proven.

¶5The estate of this taxpayer should be allowed a deduction of $15,000 from his gross income for the calendar year 1921 as a loss occasioned by storm and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

¶6Judgment will be entered pursuant to Bule 60.

/16/bta/71 · .json · Public domain