From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boothe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 16, 1985
768 F.2d 1140 (9th Cir. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-7508.

Argued and Submitted July 9, 1985.

Decided August 16, 1985.

Ferris F. Boothe, Boothe Powers, Portland, Or., for petitioners-appellants.

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber, Robert S. Pomerance, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the decision of the United States Tax Court.

Before BROWNING and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, District Judge.

The Honorable Philip C. Wilkins, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.


Ferris and Dorothy Boothe appeal the Tax Court's decision, 82 T.C. 804, disallowing a deduction of $20,792.00 as an ordinary loss on their 1977 tax return. Appellants contend that a judgment and court costs of $20,792.00 paid by them in 1977 is deductible as an ordinary loss under 26 U.S.C. § 165(c) as a loss arising from a theft; the Commissioner allowed the deduction only as a long-term capital loss under 26 U.S.C. § 165(f).

The unusual facts in this case created sharp differences of opinion in the Tax Court, with ten judges supporting the majority opinion and eight judges supporting two dissenting opinions. We agree with and adopt the dissenting opinion of Judge Korner. The decision of the Tax Court is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Tax Court for disposition consistent with Judge Korner's dissenting opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Boothe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 16, 1985
768 F.2d 1140 (9th Cir. 1985)
Case details for

Boothe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:FERRIS F. BOOTHE AND DOROTHY S. BOOTHE, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 16, 1985

Citations

768 F.2d 1140 (9th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Raifman v. Comm'r

In certain narrow circumstances a theft loss deduction has been allowed where the taxpayer lacks privity with…