- 34 -
that section the issue as to whether a loss arose from
theft is to be determined under the applicable State
law. Weingarten v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 75, 78 (1962).
The leading income tax case of Edwards v. Bromberg, 232
F.2d 107, 110-111 (5th Cir. 1956), broadly defines
"theft" as used in section 165(c)(3) as follows:
* * * the word "theft" is not like "larceny,"
a technical word of art with a narrowly
defined meaning but is, on the contrary, a
word of general and broad connotation,
intended to cover and covering any criminal
appropriation of another's property to the
use of the taker, particularly including
theft by swindling, false pretenses, and any
other form of guile * * * [I]t has been long
and well established that whether a loss from
theft occurs within the purview of Section
23(e)(3) [the predecessor to section
165(c)(3)] of the Internal Revenue Code of
1939 and the corresponding provisions of
prior acts, depends upon the law of the
jurisdiction where it was sustained and that
the exact nature of the crime, whether
larceny or embezzlement, of obtaining money
under false pretenses, swindling or other
wrongful deprivations of the property of
another, is of little importance so long as
it amounts to theft. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Both parties agree that "theft" is a criminal appropriation
of another's property. The elements of "theft" under
Pennsylvania law are embodied in the Crimes Code, Act. No. 334,
section 1.6, 1972 Pa. Laws 1482, at 1612-1613. Under the Crimes
Code, effective June 6, 1973, the intent required is a "thieving
state of mind" (citing 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann., sec. 302 (1973));
Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 318 Pa. Super. 429, 465 A.2d 29
(1983); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 279 Pa. Super. 18, 420 A.2d 722
(1980).
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011