Commissioner, Azar purchased a terminated employee’s home per terms of the employment contract and incurred a loss on the sale of the home. Azar took an ordinary loss on the sale of the home but the court ruled that the resale of the home was a capital loss and therefore was not deductible as an ordinary loss. Azar argued that the loss on the home should be fully deductible because it was an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162(a) or an ordinary loss under section 165(a). The court held that since the house was to be considered a capital asset under the general definition of section 1221, and not subject to any of the exclusions provided, the loss on the sale was to be considered a capital loss, not an ordinary loss. Azar Nut Company v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. No. 26 (1990). Azar appealed the tax court’s ruling and the 5th Circuit of Appeals Court affirmed. This has case has been cited numerous times and has a favorable
Commissioner, Azar purchased a terminated employee’s home per terms of the employment contract and incurred a loss on the sale of the home. Azar took an ordinary loss on the sale of the home but the court ruled that the resale of the home was a capital loss and therefore was not deductible as an ordinary loss. Azar argued that the loss on the home should be fully deductible because it was an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162(a) or an ordinary loss under section 165(a). The court held that since the house was to be considered a capital asset under the general definition of section 1221, and not subject to any of the exclusions provided, the loss on the sale was to be considered a capital loss, not an ordinary loss. Azar Nut Company v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. No. 26 (1990). Azar appealed the tax court’s ruling and the 5th Circuit of Appeals Court affirmed. This has case has been cited numerous times and has a favorable