- 20 -
would be deprived of relief from involuntarily generated gain
merely because of happenstance. Under that type of reasoning,
petitioner would be denied relief merely because it was a grower
of trees and also a manufacturer of products using trees, whereas
a similarly situated grower of trees without the ability to use
the damaged trees to make products would be entitled to relief,
even though its damaged trees might ultimately be manufactured
into products by others. The line respondent asks us to draw
would be illusive and a matter of conjecture.
Petitioner was growing its trees for harvest when they
reached a certain maturity. The damage occurred outside of
petitioner’s control and forced petitioner to salvage its trees
earlier than intended. That situation is indistinguishable from
the circumstances set forth in Rev. Rul. 80-175, 1980-2 C.B. 230,
where the taxpayer’s trees were felled by a hurricane. The fact
that the damage was sufficiently partial so as to result in a
substantial amount of deferral is not a reason, under the
statute, to deny relief.
We read the statute in light of respondent’s Rev. Rul. 80-
175, supra, which has been outstanding for 22 years.
In view of the foregoing,
Appropriate orders will be
issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: May 25, 2011