BRAND ET AL.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
PER CURIAM.
This case having been considered by the Court on the record, briefs and oral argument on behalf of the respective parties;
And the Court being of the opinion that the ruling of the Tax Court that the $2,700 paid by petitioners for the purpose of protecting and perfecting the title to real estate in which the petitioners had an interest was a capital expenditure and not a deductible expense for income tax purposes under Section 23 (a) (1) or (2) or Section 23(e), Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., was not erroneous; Safety Tube Corp. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 168 F. 2d 787, 789; Porter Royalty Pool v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 165 F. 2d 933, 936; Jones’ Estate v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 127 F. 2d 231; A. Giur-lani & Bro. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 119 F. 2d 852, 857.
It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Crosley Corp. v. United States, 229 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1956)
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. Adam, 215 F.2d 163 (2d Cir. 1954)
Authorities Cited
- Jones' Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 127 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1942)
- A. Giurlani & Bro., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 119 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1941)
- Safety Tube Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 168 F.2d 787 (6th Cir. 1948)
- Porter Royalty Pool, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 F.2d 933 (6th Cir. 1948)