JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS*75 OF FACT AND OPINION
GOFFE:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits are so found and incorporated herein by reference.
Petitioners Bruce P. and Wilda L. Johnson, husband and wife, were residents of Long Beach, California, at the time the petition in this case was filed. Petitioners timely filed a joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1979 with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Los Angeles, California.
Petitioner Bruce P. Johnson (Mr. Johnson) has been a licensed pilot since approximately 1958, but has been employed during that period as a pipe-fitter.
In 1973, Mr. Johnson began buying parts to build a custom aircraft (Model Bede 5) according to plans furnished by Bede Aircraft, Inc. (Bede). Such purchases continued until 1975. Mr. Johnson made all but one*76 purchase of aircraft parts from Kibler-Bede Aircraft, Inc., the local authorized dealer for Bede. Mr. Johnson paid $4,685.68 for parts and $95.63 for transporting the parts to him. The drive system, engine, long wings and electrical system, which cost a total of $1,203.50 (included in the $4,685.68 figure), were paid for, but never received. Mr. Johnson also maintained a journal of amounts paid for miscellaneous expenses such as electric drills, screwdriver sets, file sets, drill bit sets, "C" clamps, paint, spatulas and "x-acto" knives.
As each stage of construction was completed, Mr. Johnson was required to obtain approval of the construction from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before proceeding to the next phase of construction. On July 31, 1974, the FAA approved the construction of the wings, the wing stabilizers, and the vertical and horizontal tail stabilizers.
Bede filed a petition in Federal bankruptcy during 1979 in Wichita, Kansas.A court-ordered auction of all Bede assets, including the inventory of aircraft parts, was set for June 18 and 19, 1979. Petitioners filed a claim against Bede Aircraft, Inc. in the bankruptcy matter as a part of a*77 group or class of creditors. The bankruptcy case of Bede Aircraft, Inc. was still open as of July 21, 1983.
Petitioners have not sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of the partially constructed aircraft. Further, the cost of the parts necessary to complete construction of the aircraft plus the cost of the present structure would exceed the potential sales price.Petitioners have never sold any other aircraft although, prior to 1958, Mr. Johnson worked for Douglas Aircraft Company, which sold aircraft. Petitioners have never constructed any other aircraft although Mr. Johnson has worked on the construction of aircraft in his capacity as an employee. Mr. Johnson planned to fly the aircraft himself once it was completed and before it was sold.
Petitioners deducted $4,000 as a long-term capital loss on their joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1979.
On July 1, 1981, the Commissioner issued a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioners for the taxable year 1979. The Commissioner disallowed the entire capital loss claimed by petitioners on the basis that petitioners did not establish that the amount claimed on their return was "(a) a loss (b) which*78 is allowed as an adjustment to your Income [sic] and (c) sustained by you."
OPINION
The issue for decision in whether petitioners may deduct the cost of an unfinished aircraft as a capital loss, casualty loss, trade or business loss, abandonment loss, or bad debt loss. Deductions are a matter of legislative grance, and taxpayers must satisfy the specific requirements of the deductions they claim.
Petitioners claimed the cost of the unfinished aircraft as a long-term capital loss on their return. Petitioners argue that they have sustained either a capital loss or a casualty loss in the amount of $4,000*79 because they cannot obtain the parts necessary to complete the aircraft at a reasonable cost. Petitioners contend that the loss occurred when it became apparent, as a result of Bede's bankruptcy filing in 1979, that they would be unable to complete the aircraft at a cost allowing for profit upon sale.
Respondent contends that petitioners have sustained no deductible loss on the basis that: (1) there was no capital loss in the taxable year 1979; (2) there was no casualty within the meaning of
Petitioners' primary argument is that the loss is deductible as a long-term capital loss. Such capital losses are deductible by an individual under
In the alternative, petitioners argue that the loss occurred as the result of a casualty, which is defined, under
losses of property not connected with a trade or business, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft. * * *
Petitioners have failed to present any evidence of a casualty of the sort listed under
Implicit in petitioners' arguments is a contention that this loss is deductible as a trade or business loss under
A third type of loss deductible by an individual under
Finally, when an individual pays for goods, but does not receive them, the individual may have a bad debt deductible under
where any nonbusiness debt becomes worthless within the taxable year, the loss resulting therefrom shall be considered a loss from the sale or exchange, during the taxable year, of a capital asset held for not more than 1 year.
The bad debt must, however, be shown to be totally worthless in the year for which the bad debt is claimed.
While we are sympathetic to petitioners' inability to either recover the funds paid to Bede for which they received no parts, or to reasonably complete their aircraft, petitioners have failed to present sufficient evidence to support allowance of a deduction under
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and attendant regulations as amended and in effect for the relevant years, and all rule references are to this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Neither party contend that the facts reflect a "transaction entered into for profit" under
section 165(c)(2)↩ or an activity "not engaged in for profit" under section 183.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.