Miller v. Commissioner

Last updated
Miller v. Commissioner
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case nameDixon F. Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued October 10, 1983
Decided May 2, 1984
Citation(s) 733 F.2d 399; 84-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9451
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Pierce Lively, George Clifton Edwards, Jr., Albert J. Engel Jr., Damon Keith, Gilbert S. Merritt Jr., Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, Boyce F. Martin Jr., Nathaniel R. Jones, Leroy John Contie, Jr., Robert B. Krupansky, Harry W. Wellford (en banc)
Case opinions
Majority Wellford, joined by Engel, Merritt, Kennedy, Martin, Krupansky
Dissent Contie, joined by Lively, Edwards, Keith, Jones
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165

Miller v. Commissioner, 733 F.2d 399 (6th Cir. 1984) [1] was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that taxpayers are allowed to claim deductions for economic detriments which are a loss and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise regardless whether the property was insured or not.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the head of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an agency within the United States Department of the Treasury.

Case citation a system for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

The Federal Reporter is a case law reporter in the United States that is published by West Publishing and a part of the National Reporter System. It begins with cases decided in 1880; pre-1880 cases were later retroactively compiled by West Publishing into a separate reporter, Federal Cases. The third and current Federal Reporter series publishes decisions of the United States courts of appeals and the United States Court of Federal Claims; prior series had varying scopes that covered decisions of other federal courts as well. Though West is a private company that does not have a legal monopoly over the court opinions it publishes, it has so dominated the industry in the United States that legal professionals, including judges, uniformly cite to the Federal Reporter for included decisions. It is estimated that the Fourth Series of the Federal Reporter will begin sometime around 2025. The United States Reports are the official law reports of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Contents

This case is relevant both to personal taxpayers as well as businesses and allows them to make an informed decision about whether or not to pursue insurance indemnification for their loss. Following this decision, the indemnification can be compared to subsequent insurance effects as well as the potential savings as a result of a tax deduction.

Facts

Plaintiff taxpayer had an undamaged boat and a friend who is a bad captain. Unfortunately he lent his boat to this friend who then ran taxpayer's boat into the ground. Taxpayer was able to collect $200.00 from his friend, reducing taxpayer's actual loss to $642.55. After taking into account the $100.00 limitation under 26 U.S.C. § 165(c)(3), taxpayer claimed a $542.22 casualty loss deduction on his 1976 return. While the taxpayer's boat was insured, he did not file an insurance claim for fear of having his insurance policy revoked. 26 U.S.C. § 165(c)allows a deduction for private parties for losses resulting from a shipwreck.

A casualty loss is a type of tax loss that is a sudden, unexpected, or unusual event. Damage or loss resulting from progressive deterioration of property through a steadily operating cause would not be a casualty loss. “Other casualty” are events similar to “fire, storm, or shipwreck.” It is generally held that wherever force is applied to property which the owner-taxpayer is either unaware of because of the hidden nature of such application or is powerless to act to prevent the same because of the suddenness thereof or some other disability and damage results.

Issues

The court considered whether a taxpayer's voluntary election not to file an insurance claim for a loss precludes the taxpayer from taking a casualty loss deduction according to 26 U.S.C. § 165.

In plain language: If you damage something that is insured or under warranty but don't make a claim and don't receive compensation, can you still deduct the loss according to 26 U.S.C. § 165.

Holding

The court held that taxpayers are allowed to claim deductions for economic detriments which are a loss and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise regardless whether the property was insured or not.

Plain language example: Someone backs into your car while you are away and breaks a taillight. While you have insurance for the taillight, you don't make a claim because you might lose your insurance or don't want to deal with the paper work. The loss in excess of the limit in 26 U.S.C. § 165(c)3 (currently $100) may be deducted.

Reasoning

The court analyzed the facts of this case in light of two prior and contradicting cases, Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Glenn, 394 F.2d 631 (6th Cir. 1968) [2] , and Hills v. C.I.R., 76 T.C. 484 (1981), aff'd., 691 F.2d 997 (11th Cir. 1982). [3] The Kentucky court held that a taxpayer could not deduct a loss according to 26 U.S.C. § 165 if he elected not to file an insurance claim when one was available to him. Kentucky Utilities did not pursue indemnification from an equipment supplier for a technical fault and did not accept a full indemnification from their insurer in order to maintain the business relationship with the manufacturer. In order to claim a deduction, the ""Kentucky"" court required the taxpayer to a) exhaust all reasonable prospects for insurance indemnification before claiming a sustained loss or (b) that 26 U.S.C. § 165 equated "not compensated by" with "not covered by." The deduction claimed by Kentucky Utilities was not allowed.

The Hills court rejected Kentucky and held that Section 165(a) allows a deduction for an economic detriment that (1) is a loss, and (2) is not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. Hills also recognized that "compensated" is distinct from "covered." The Hills court recognized that "All losses compensated by insurance are also… covered by insurance; nonetheless, it should be equally obvious that… all losses covered by insurance are also compensated for, is not necessarily true." 2.

The court in the present case followed the reasoning in Hills and adopted a plain English interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 165(a) that allows a deduction for an economic detriment that is a loss and (2) is not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

Implications

The court is avoiding two undesirable consequences of the Kentucky Utilities rule. First, it allows insured taxpayers to decline insurance indemnification without the penalty of not being able to deduct the loss as if they did not have insurance. There are many valid reasons for not involving insurance companies and the tax law should not work against them. Second, taxpayers who carry no insurance or are under-insured are not rewarded with an additional deduction not available to their colleagues who carry the proper amount of insurance coverage.

Related Research Articles

Indemnity Expenses that are made to compensate for disadvantages suffered or restrictions

Indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party (indemnifier) to compensate the loss occurred to the other party due to the act of the indemnitor or any other party. The duty to indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the contractual duty to "hold harmless" or "save harmless". In contrast, a guarantee is an obligation of one party assuring the other party that guarantor will perform the promise of the third party if it defaults.

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

Under United States tax law, itemized deductions are eligible expenses that individual taxpayers can claim on federal income tax returns and which decrease their taxable income, and is claimable in place of a standard deduction, if available.

Income tax in the United States form of taxation in the USA

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal, most state, and many local governments. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Rules concerning income tax and gambling vary internationally.

<i>Mazzei v. Commissioner</i>

In Mazzei v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 497 (1974), the United States Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer could not consider $20,000 lost to a fraudulent counterfeiting scheme as a basis for a deduction under section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code").

<i>Zaninovich v. Commissioner</i>

Zaninovich v. Commissioner, 616 F.2d 429, is a United States court case about the deductibility of advance payments for tax purposes.

Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, 344 U.S. 6 (1952), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding taxation. The case involves taxpayers who liquidated a corporation in 1937. The taxpayers (properly) reported the income from the liquidation as long-term capital gains, thus obtaining a preferential tax rate. Subsequent to the liquidation in 1944, the taxpayers were required to pay a judgment arising from the affairs of the liquidated corporation. The taxpayers classified this payment as an ordinary business loss, which would allow them to take a greater deduction for the loss than would be permitted for a capital loss.

<i>Pevsner v. Commissioner</i>

Pevsner v. Commissioner, 628 F.2d 467 is a United States federal income tax case before the Fifth Circuit. It dealt with the issue of whether clothes purchased solely for use at work could be treated as a business expense deduction on a taxpayer's return.

<i>Commissioner v. Boylston Market Assn</i>

Commissioner v. Boylston Market Association, 131 F.2d 966 was a taxation case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

<i>Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner</i>

Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 264, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code only allows deductions against income for expenses that occur while carrying on a trade or business.

Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, is part of United States taxation law. It concerns deductions for business expenses. It is one of the most important provisions in the Code, because it is the most widely used authority for deductions. If an expense is not deductible, then Congress considers the cost to be a consumption expense. Section 162(a) requires six different elements in order to claim a deduction. It must be an

<i>Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States</i>

Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States, 158 F.3d 484, was a court case that addressed whether a casino, using the accrual method of accounting, could deduct the value of slot club points earned by slot club members in the tax year in which the members accumulated the minimum points required to redeem a prize, or whether the casino had to wait to deduct the value of the slot club points until the members actually redeemed them.

<i>Grynberg v. Commissioner</i>

Grynberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 255 (1984) was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that one taxpayer's prepaid business expenses were not ordinary and necessary expenses of the years in which they were made, and therefore the prepayments were not tax deductible. Taxpayers in the United States often seek to maximize their income and decrease their tax liability by prepaying deductible expenses and taking a deduction earlier rather than in a later tax year.

<i>Haverly v. United States</i>

Haverly v. United States, 513 F.2d 224 is a United States income tax case.

Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. It concerned claims made by parents of two missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that their monetary contributions toward their sons' mission expenses constituted a "charitable contribution" under provisions of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-1(g) (1989), a position that lower courts had rejected. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that these contributions could not be seen as "charitable contributions" under provisions of that statute.

<i>Sibla v. Commissioner</i>

Sibla v. Commissioner, 611 F.2d 1260, was an important income tax case regarding 26 U.S.C.S. § 162(a).

<i>Early v. Commissioner</i>

Early v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 166 was a United States income tax case, holding that an agreement between taxpayers and heirs of decedent—pursuant to which taxpayers received a joint life interest in income from the trust estate in return for the surrender of stock allegedly given to them by the decedent—was actually a compromise of the taxpayers' disputed right to the stock, and since they claimed the stock as donees, they were to be treated as having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes.

<i>Wills v. Commissioner</i>

Wills v. Commissioner, 411 F.2d 537 was a United States taxation case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1969.

References

  1. Miller v. Commissioner, 733F.2d399 (6th Cir.1984).
  2. Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Glenn, 394F.2d631 (6th Cir.1968).
  3. Hills v. Commissioner, 691F.2d997 (11th Cir.1982).