Case Name: PUENTE et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-11-14
Citations: 199 F.2d 940
Docket Number: No. 13239
Parties: PUENTE et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 199
Pages: 940–941

Head Matter:
PUENTE et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 13239.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 14, 1952.
Lafayette J. Smallpage, Stockton, Cal., Walter G. Schwartz, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.
Ellis N. Slack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Helen Goodner, Carlton Fox, Joseph F. Goetten, Spec. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for re-' spondent 'Commissioner of Internal. Revenue.
Before HEALY, BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek to set aside an order of the Tax Court denying their claim that a loss sustained by them in the year 1945 on a foreclosure sale of their dairy herd and equipment used by them in the operation of their dairy business in 1944 and 1945 could be carried back, to the taxable year under § 122(d) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122(d) (5). They concede that the issue presented is substantially the same as that in the following cases which have been decided adversely to the taxpayers: Lazier v. United States, 8 Cir., 170 F.2d 521, 9 A.L.R.2d 324; Sic v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 469, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 913, 70 S.Ct. 572, 94 L.Ed. 1339; Merrill v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 310; Baruch v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 178 F.2d 402; Pettit v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 175 F.2d 195; and Smith v. United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 357.
Petitioners have presented reasons why they think those cases were wrongly decided. We have considered with care.the petitioners' arguments. They do not persuade us. In our judgment the decisions cited were required by the terms of the section referred to.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.