Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Wasnok v. Commissioner

Citation. Wasnok v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1971-6, 30 T.C.M. (CCH) 39, T.C.M. (RIA) 71006 (T.C. Jan. 11, 1971)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Petitioners bought a house in Ohio and subsequently moved to California. Unable to sell the Ohio house, they rented in out for a number of years. Eventually they were unable to continue to make the mortgage payments and were forced to deed the property back to the bank.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A capital asset does not include property used in a trade or business, including real property.

Facts.

Petitioners’, Stephen and Mary Wasnok, are married and resided in Fullerton, California. In 1960 Petitioners bought a home in Cincinnati, Ohio where they were living at the time. After moving to California they attempted to sell the property unsuccessfully. In 1961 Petitioners leased the property for $225 a month. In 1965 Petitioner became unable to make the payments on the mortgage and deeded the property back to the bank in satisfaction of their note in the amount of $24,421.04. They filed income tax returns for the years 1961 through 1964 and claimed total depreciation of $4,697. Petitioners did not file returns in 1965 and 1966. In 1967 they claimed a capital loss carry-forward deduction in the amount of $1,000. In 1968 they claimed another capital loss carry-forward of $389. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not allow the capital loss carry-forward deductions arguing that it was an ordinary loss sustained in 1965 and fully deductible in 1965.

Issue.

Does Petitioners’ disposition of the real property at a loss constitute an ordinary loss fully deductible in the year sustained, or a capital loss as a loss carryover?

Held.

Commissioner Sacks issued the opinion for the Tax Court of the United States in affirming the Commissioner and holding that the loss was not a capital loss but an ordinary one deductible in the year sustained.

Discussion.

The Tax Court found that the evidence proved that the property was used in a trade or business and was not a capital asset. Petitioners rented out the property for four years, at a substantial rent, and deducted expenses related to the rental activity.


Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following