Hightower v. United States, 71-2170.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2170.,71-2170. |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 182 |
| Parties | Rossell M. HIGHTOWER, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert B. Hightower, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Fred B. Ugast, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Aaron K. Bowden, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Elmer J. Kelsey, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Daniel B. Rosenbaum, Donald H. Olson, Attys. N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
William R. Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
This case presents the single legal issue of whether or not the taxpayers are entitled to a deductible loss for federal income tax purposes under § 165 of the Internal Revenue Code for the demolition of three buildings owned by them in 1964. The buildings were demolished by a tenant of the taxpayers under a 99-year lease, which permitted the tenant to destroy the buildings, but did not require their destruction. The lease did not require replacement of the buildings or any other compensation to the taxpayers for the destroyed buildings, the rent being the same before and after destruction.1
This is the first time this question has been presented to this Circuit. In 1964 the Ninth Circuit decided the issue in favor of the taxpayer. Feldman v. Wood, 335 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1964). Recently the Seventh Circuit decided the issue in favor of the government. Landerman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 454 F.2d 338 (7th Cir. 1971). More recently the Eighth Circuit in a split decision has followed Landerman and decided the issue in favor of the government in Foltz v. United States, 458 F.2d 600 (8th Cir. 1972). We affirm District Judge William A. McRae's reliance on the Feldman case for the reasons stated in his opinion and in the Feldman opinion itself. Hightower v. United States, 346 F.Supp. 707 (M.D. Fla.1971).
We consider the rationale in the Feld-man case and the dissent in the Foltz case to be more persuasive than the difficult reasoning in the Landerman case. The regulations are clear and not inconsistent with the Code.2 The taxpayers were entitled to rely on them.
This decision is not inconsistent with our holding in Holder v. United States, 444 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1971). There we held that the taxpayer was not entitled to a loss because the lease required the tenant to replace the demolished building with other buildings meeting certain specifications and value. Thus "they were compensated for their loss by the lessee's contractual duty to construct other improvements to be delivered to taxpayers at the termination of the lease." (p. 1300). There is no such contractual duty under the Hightower lease.
Affirmed.
1 The lease provided as follows:
"The lessee, at the time of the commencement of the term hereof, shall have the right to demolish any and all structures or improvements presently located on the herein demised premises, which demolition shall be accomplished at the sole cost of the lessee, the lessee shall not be obligated to pay the lessors any sum or other considerations other than the payment of rent as hereinabove specified in, to, or concerning the demolition of said improvements."
2 Section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and U.S.Treasury Reg., § 1.165-3(b)(1) and (2):
"SEC. 165. LOSSES.
(Sec. 165(a))
(a) General Rule.—There shall be allowed as a deduction any loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. Source: Sec. 23(f), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged.
(Sec. 165(b))
(b) Amount of Deduction.—For purposes of subsection (a), the basis for determining the amount of the deduction for any loss shall be the adjudged basis provided in section 1011 for determining the loss from the sale or other disposition of property.
Source: Sec. 23(i), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged.
"§ 1.165-3. Demolition of buildings.
(a) Intent to demolish formed at time of purchase. (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the following rule shall apply when, in the course of a trade or business or in a transaction entered into for profit, real property is purchased with the intention of demolishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. U.S.
...Foltz v. United States, 458 F.2d 600 (8th Cir. 1972). See also Levinson v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 676 (1973). Contra, Hightower v. United States,463 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1972); Feldman v. Wood, 335 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1964). The word "requirement" means something wanted or needed, 8 so demoliti......
-
Gilman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...this circumstance. See Landerman v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1042, 1045 (1970), affd. 454 F.2d 338 (7th Cir. 1971). Cf. Hightower v. United States, 463 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1972). 10. Sec. 274(a) provides:(a) ENTERTAINMENT, AMUSEMENT, OR RECREATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No deduction otherwise allowa......
-
Yates Motor Co., Inc. v. C.I.R.
...in the lease for a particular party to demolish the building. This position was followed by the Fifth Circuit in Hightower v. United States, 463 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1972). The Seventh and Eighth Circuits, on the contrary, have adopted a more expansive reading of the Regulation and it is this......
-
Levinson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...(C.A. 7, 1971), which accorded a broad interpretation to the clause ‘pursuant to the requirements of a lease,‘ with Hightower v. United States, 463 F.2d 182 (C.A. 5, 1972), and Feldman v. Wood, 335 F.2d 264 (C.A. 9, 1964), which accorded a narrow interpretation to that clause. Petitioners m......