Burns v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 14040.,14040. |
| Citation | 284 F.2d 436 |
| Parties | Howard F. BURNS and Elna A. Burns, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James C. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants; Warren E. Hacker, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.
Louise Foster, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Rita E. Hauser, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Before SIMONS, Senior Circuit Judge, HOLLAND, Senior District Judge, and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge.
In the tax 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maher v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 4271-78.
...coconut palms caused by a disease, lethal yellowing. Burns v. United States, 174 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ohio 1959), affd. per curiam284 F.2d 436 (6th Cir. 1960), followed. Kurt Wellisch, for the petitioner.Jan S. Neiman, for the respondent.HALL, Judge: Respondent determined a $14,669 deficiency......
-
Coleman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 10892-79.
...a casualty loss under sec. 165(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954. Burns v. United States, 174 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ohio 1959), affd. per curiam284 F.2d 436 (6th Cir. 1960), followed. Joseph Falcone, for the petitioners.Clyde W. Mauldin, for the respondent.PARKER , Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency i......
-
Kielts v. Commissioner, Docket No. 17660-79.
...32 T.C. 1304 (1959); Burns v. United States 59-2 USTC ¶ 9514, 174 F. Supp. 203, 208-209 (N.D. Ohio 1959), affd. 61-1 USTC ¶ 9127 284 F. 2d 436 (6th Cir. 1960). The loss in the present case would be considered sudden, whether "suddenness" is determined with reference to the event itself or m......
-
Appleman v. United States, 14592.
...3 The most analogous of the cases appears to be Burns v. United States, (N.D. Ohio, E.D.) 174 F.Supp. 203, affirmed per curiam, (8 Cir.) 284 F.2d 436, where it was held that the loss of elm trees in consequence of the Dutch Elm Disease was not a casualty within the meaning of the comparable......