HOWARD F. BURNS AND ELNA A. BURNS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the loss of a tree due to Dutch Elm disease does not constitute a casualty loss for tax deduction purposes.
Plaintiffs removed a tree infected with Dutch Elm disease and deducted the loss as a casualty. The IRS assessed a deficiency, and plaintiffs sued to r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Casualty Loss Deduction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In thekak year 1948, an elm tree in the yard of plaintiffs’ home became infected with Dutch Elm disease. To prevent the spread of the disease to other trees on plaintiffs’ premises and in the neighborhood, and in obedience to a municipal ordinance, the diseased tree was removed and destroyed. Plaintiffs, claiming they had thus suffered a casualty loss within the meaning of Section 23(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S. C.A. § 23(e)(3), deducted the amount of their loss in computing their income for the tax year. This action was brought to recover the amount paid by plaintiff taxpayers upon assessment of a deficiency equal to the amount so deducted. The sole question here involved is whether or not the taxpayers did, in fact and law, experience the casualty claimed.
The evidence offered to sustain the plaintiffs’ claim is adequately recited and reviewed in the opinion of the District Judge who held against the taxpayers, concluding that the loss of taxpayers’ tree through Dutch Elm disease was not a casualty as claimed. We agree with the conclusion of the District Judge, and are satisfied that his comprehensive opinion adequately discloses the questions involved and expresses the correct legal conclusion.
The opinion of then District Judge Paul C. Weick is reported as Burns v. United States, 1959, 174 F.Supp. 203. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Appleman v. United States, 338 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1964)
-
Campbell v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 504 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir. 1974)
-
Meersman v. United States, 370 F.2d 109 (6th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence