Robinson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

24 Citing cases

  1. Hartford v. United States

    265 F. Supp. 86 (W.D. Wis. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    The court held (907-908):         'But when efforts are made to rent the property as were made by petitioner herein, the property is then being held for the production of income and this may be so even though no income is in fact received from the property, Mary Laughlin Robinson, 2 T.C. 305, and even though the property is at the same time offered for sale.'         If property held vacant and unrented is property held for the production of income, property actually rented may be property held for the production of income.

  2. Hoopengarner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    80 T.C. 538 (U.S.T.C. 1983)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, expenses incurred with respect to property held for the production of future recurring income, as well as for future appreciation, may be deductible under section 212(2). Horrmann v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 903, 908 (1951); Robinson v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 305, 308-309 (1943). We find that petitioner held the lease for the production of future income for purposes of section 212(2).

  3. Meredith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    65 T.C. 34 (U.S.T.C. 1975)   Cited 4 times
    In Meredith, the Court held that the taxpayers had no reasonable expectation of rental income after being unable to rent out their house for numerous years.

    SEC. 212. EXPENSES FOR PRODUCTION OF INCOME.In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year—(2) for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income; or * * * Petitioner advances the argument that prior to 1969 she had forever abandoned the Pebble Beach property as a secondary residence, and that under our decision in May Laughlin Robinson, 2 T.C. 305 (1943), the property was converted to ‘property held for the production of income’ by being listed for sale or rent. In support of her position, petitioner has also cited section 1.212-1(b) and (h), Income Tax Regs., which provides:

  4. Lowry v. United States

    384 F. Supp. 257 (D.N.H. 1974)

    First, it stemmed from a fear that taxpayers would countermand the listing for sale after taking a series of deductions and reoccupy the house on a personal basis. Mary Laughlin Robinson, 2 T.C. 305, 309 (1943). Second, the rental requisite provided a clear and convenient administrative test.

  5. Drown v. United States

    203 F. Supp. 514 (S.D. Cal. 1962)   Cited 3 times
    In Drown v. United States, 203 F. Supp. 514 (S.D. Calif., 1962), a clothes designing company was started up with $15,000 of paid-in capital, but before a single sale had been made, a 50 percent stockholder made cash advances to it of $85,000.

    Ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the management or maintenance of a building devoted to rental purposes or held for investment are deductible notwithstanding the fact that there is actually no income therefrom in the taxable year. U.S. Treasury Regulations 111, # 29.23(a)-15(b); See also Mary L. Robinson, 2 T.C. 305 (1943) and Briley v. U.S., 189 F. Supp. 510 (N.D. Ohio 1960). Directing the court's attention to the Government's second contention, the amounts which Brown claims for January and February (1948) expenses, salaries and wages, and depreciation would have been expended or written off regardless of plaintiff's general plan of reconditioning and altering the property.

  6. Briley v. United States

    189 F. Supp. 510 (N.D. Ohio 1960)   Cited 2 times

    However, the Court remanded the case to the Tax Court so that it might consider the applicability of Section 23 of the Code, as amended, and which had been made retroactive by the Revenue Act of 1942. The case was reconsidered by the Tax Court, Robinson v. Commissioner, 1943, 2 T.C. 305, and, in an opinion reviewed by that Court, it held that the amended statute required allowance of deductions for maintenance and depreciation. The Court said that property formerly constituting a residence no longer need be converted into business property to allow deductions for expenses and that the property involved had been appropriated to income-producing purposes by the taxpayer's affirmative actions in abandoning it as a residence and listing it with two real estate firms which had made diligent efforts to sell or rent it but had succeeded in renting only the garage.

  7. Merrill v. United States

    55 F. Supp. 674 (W.D.N.Y. 1944)   Cited 2 times

    Steele County v. Erskine, 8 Cir., 98 F. 215, cited by plaintiffs, was not a tax case, and question of statutory bar like that claimed to be provided by Section 322(c), supra, was not involved. In Robinson v. Com'r, 2 T.C. 305, the original proceedings were pending before the Tax Court, and the case was remanded to determine the applicability of Section 23, supra, as amended. There are other cases cited by the plaintiffs which it seems unnecessary to discuss.

  8. Bolaris v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    81 T.C. 52 (U.S.T.C. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    Even more to the point, until today the law has been well settled that when the property is leased under the varying circumstances outlined above at its fair market rental value in an arm's-length transaction, it is property held for the production of income as described in sections 212 and 167 and their predecessors. See Briley v. United States, 298 F.2d 161 (6th Cir. 1962); Horrmann v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 903 (1951); Robinson v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 305 (1943); see also Treas. Reg. sec. 1.212–1(h) (“ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in connection with the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held by the taxpayer as rental property are deductible even though such property was formerly held by the taxpayer for use as a home”). Indeed residential property has been considered to have been held for the production of income even when the owner has been unsuccessful in his efforts to rent the property.

  9. Riss v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    56 T.C. 388 (U.S.T.C. 1971)

    Marjorie M. P. May, 35 T.C. 865 (1961), affd. 299 F.2d 725 (C.A. 4, 1962). Usually, this question arises in the context of an individual taxpayer who has abandoned his place of residence, and who is seeking a deduction for the cost of maintaining that property prior to sale (see e.g. William C. Horrmann, 17 T.C. 903, (1951); E. R. Fenimore Johnson, 19 T.C. 93 (1952); and Mary Laughlin Robinson, 2 T.C. 305 (1943), although in the Marjorie M. P. May case, the subject matter which generated the deductions there in question was a yacht. However, whatever the nature of the asset, the claimant taxpayer in these cases is invariably a noncorporate entity.

  10. Newcombe v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    54 T.C. 1298 (U.S.T.C. 1970)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that facts and circumstances dictate whether a former residence used for personal purposes has been converted in the hands of the same taxpayer into property held for the production of income

    Sec. 1.212-1(b), Income Tax Regs. Cf. George W. Mitchell, supra, May v. Commissioner, 299 F.2dat 727. Compare Mary Laughlin Robinson, 2 T.C. 305, 308 (1943), on remand from 134 F.2d 168 (C.A. 3, 1943), with Warren Leslie, Sr., 6 T.C.at 494. ‘Ordinary and necessary expenses so paid or incurred are deductible under section 23(a)(2) (now sec. 212(2)) even though they are not paid or incurred for the production or collection of income of the taxable year or of the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of such income.