Document: 344 U.S. 167 73 S.Ct. 191 97 L.Ed. 186 ALISONv.UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. STEVENSON-CHISLETT, Inc. Nos. 79, 80. Argued Nov. 12, 1952. Decided Dec. 8, Mr. Karl E. Weise, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Alison. David B. Buerger, Stevenson-Chislett, Ins. Hilbert P. Zarky, Washington, D.C., the United States. Justice BLACK delivered opinion of Court. 1 The questions in these two income tax cases are so much alike that they can be treated one opinion. Both taxpayers had moneys embezzled by trusted agents and employees. As usual, defalcations been going on many years before were discovered. On discovery, efforts made immediately to identify takers fix dates amounts thefts. In Alison case, No. books revealed thief precise taken each year from 1931 1940. 80, Inc., cover-up successful painstaking investigation failed reveal who took funds or time when unascertained person persons them. Each taxpayer claimed a deduction losses discovered their ascertained. Government objected, claiming should have prior during which being surreptitiously taken. Stevenson-Chislett District Court held uncertain circumstances embezzlement entitled take its loss was amount 98 F.Supp 252. Judge decided other way case denied her declarations. F.Supp. 959. His holding, however, not accord with his own views, but compelled, he thought, Third Circuit's decision First National Bank Sharon, Pa. Heiner, 66 F.2d 925. Appeals Circuit certified us question deductibility both cases. Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1254(3), U.S.C.A. we ordered complete records sent up might decide entire matters controversy. 2 Internal Revenue Code, 23(e) (f), 26 23(e, f), authorize deductions '* * sustained taxable *.' reads this section as requiring theft occurs, even though inability discover completely deprive benefit statutory deduction. Only at money is stolen, it argued, 'sustained.' But Treasury practice itself belies rigid construction. For more than thirty Regulations provided 'A occurring another ordinarily deductible sustained.' CFR 29.43—2. (Emphasis supplied.) Information contained letter Commissioner attached an appendix Government's brief cites instances has allowed subsequent those thefts occurred. Apparently Department felt constrained do order prevent hardships injustice. These departures 'ordinary' rule attributing theft. 3 This evidently stems least part special nature crime embezzlement. Its essence secrecy. Taxpayers usually well aware all financial allowed. Not adviser employee steals. may known only himself. He planning return there discovery. Furthermore, terms synonymous. whether remain uncertain. One whose pursue wrongdoer recover property wholly part. See Wilcox, 327 404, 546, 90 752. Events show practical value right recovery. A substantial proportion recovered 1941, ten after first recovery alone ample refutation view inevitably 'sustained' very committed. 4 Whether results factual question, according surrounding circumstances. Boehm Commissioner, 326 287, 120, 78. An inflexible needed; statute does compel it. administered law under regulations saying shall 'ordinarily' Ordinarily mean always. 5 We hold found Courts justify I.R.C. (f) long-standing applicable losses. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. Cir., 128 473; Gwinn Bros. & 7 T.C. 320. Accordingly, judgment 79 reversed 80 affirmed. 6 It ordered. Judgment 8 DOUGLAS BURTON dissent.

Category: 11