Harvey and Florence Pulvers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
407 F.2d 838, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9035, 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 678 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer may not take a deduction for an 'other casualty loss' under Section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for a decline in property value unless the property has suffered actual physical damage.
Facts:
- The taxpayers owned a residence.
- A landslide occurred in the vicinity of the taxpayers' property.
- The landslide destroyed three nearby homes.
- The taxpayers' property sustained no physical damage from the landslide.
- Access to and from the taxpayers' property was not substantially impaired.
- The market value of the taxpayers' property significantly decreased due to public fear that a similar landslide might affect their home in the future.
Procedural Posture:
- The taxpayers claimed a deduction for a casualty loss on their federal income tax return.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction.
- The taxpayers challenged the Commissioner's determination in the United States Tax Court.
- The Tax Court affirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding the taxpayers had not incurred a deductible loss.
- The taxpayers, as appellants, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a decline in a property's market value due to buyer fear following a nearby landslide, without any physical damage to the property itself, qualify as a deductible 'other casualty loss' under Section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Chambers, Circuit Judge.
No. A decline in a property's market value due to buyer fear following a nearby landslide, without any physical damage to the property itself, does not qualify as a deductible 'other casualty loss.' The court reasoned that under the principle of statutory interpretation 'in para materia' (similar to ejusdem generis), the term 'other casualty' should be interpreted to be similar to the specific examples listed in the statute: 'fire, storm, shipwreck.' All of these enumerated events involve physical damage to property. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to cover mere fluctuations in market value, as doing so would open the door to limitless claims for depreciation due to external factors, such as highway shifts or undesirable neighbors, creating an unmanageable administrative burden. The court distinguished this situation from a hypothetical case where a property is completely abandoned due to certain future consequences or where access is materially impaired.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the physical damage requirement for claiming a casualty loss deduction under IRC § 165(c)(3). It establishes a clear precedent that economic loss or a decline in market value, even when directly caused by a nearby disaster, is not a 'casualty' in the legal sense without a tangible, physical impact on the taxpayer's property. This ruling significantly narrows the scope of the deduction, providing a bright-line rule that prevents claims based on market psychology or fear. The decision limits potential tax litigation by disallowing claims for a wide range of events that might negatively affect property value without causing direct harm.
