Court Opinion

ID: 9445364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:26:18.913234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:13.529422
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It appears clear to me that the finding of the Tax Court that the drainage system in question was a permanent improvement to petitioner’s property was unsupported by the evidence. If it had not been for the action brought against petitioner by the Niekolas’ for damages to their property because of the alleged conduct of petitioner in increasing the drainage of rainfall upon their land, petitioner would never have thought of constructing a drain; and if it had paid $8,-224 to the Niekolas’ in settlement of their suit or claims for past, present, and future damages resulting from such increased drainage of water, such payment could not be considered as an expenditure for a permanent improvement to increase the value of its property, or, as the Tax Court found, “a permanent improvement to petitioner’s property.” There is no difference between the construction of the drain by petitioner and the payment to the Niekolas’ of the amount required for its construction. I therefore concur with the minority opinion of the Tax Court and accordingly am of the view that the decision should be reversed.