We agree thoroughly with Judge Mur-dock’s findings of fact and opinion that the losses in these ill-fated ventures cannot be considered “ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * * in carrying on any trade or business” under I.R.C. 1939, § 23(a) (1) (A). Nor do we find basis for sustaining the taxpayers’ belated claim that the losses were “ordinary and necessary expenses * * * for the production or collection of income” under I.R.C.1939, § 23(a) (2).

Decision affirmed.