From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 14, 1953
209 F.2d 255 (6th Cir. 1953)

Opinion

No. 11869.

December 14, 1953.

Petitioners not represented.

Lester Brand, in pro. per.

H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, Helen Goodner, Dudley J. Godfrey, Washington, D.C., Kenneth W. Gemmill, Philadelphia, Pa., and Rolling H. Transue, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


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. Giurlani Bro. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 852, 857.

It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 14, 1953
209 F.2d 255 (6th Cir. 1953)
Case details for

Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:BRAND et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Dec 14, 1953

Citations

209 F.2d 255 (6th Cir. 1953)

Citing Cases

Koontz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In addition, the payments which petitioner made are essentially similar to expenses incurred in clearing…