Summary
discussing the crime-fraud exception and noting the failure to heed advice does not disturb the privilege
Summary of this case from Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.Opinion
No. 8475.
January 8, 1941.
Petition to Review a Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.
Petition by Charles B. Warren, Jr., and another, administrators, to review a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals redetermining a deficiency in taxes determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Decision of the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed.
B. Dave Bushaw and Arnold Zeleznik, both of Detroit, Mich. (B. Dave Bushaw, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for petitioners.
Louise Foster, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Howard D. Pack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
The facts in this case do not differentiate it from C.L. Gransden Co. v. Commissioner, and Tuttle v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 80, this day decided. As stipulated, they show that the petitioners' decedent suffered a substantial loss by virtue of principal payments and betterments to improved property purchased on land contract from vendors who had themselves bought the property upon contract. Later, the petitioners' decedent quit-claimed all his right, title, and interest to his vendors and was released from liability for further payments. As in the principal cases he deducted the full amount of the loss as an ordinary loss, but the deduction was disallowed in part by the respondent on the ground that the loss resulted from the sale or exchange of a capital asset and so was limited by the provisions of § 117 of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev. Acts, page 707.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion in the Gransden and Tuttle cases, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.