Court Opinion

ID: 9455810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:34:18.430525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:44.860190
License: Public Domain

COLLINS, Judge
(concurring):
Under the existing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, there is no alternative but to concur in the result reached in this ease. However, since this court cannot legislate, the need here is for Congress to change the existing law in regard to timber losses.1
This case is a perfect example of how easy it is for an individual, owning farm land or uncultivated land on which there has developed a natural growth of timber, to sustain a loss of considerable value as the result of fire or other casualty. The fact that this loss is nondeductible is due mainly to the fact that timber, unlike so many other commodities, can develop naturally without any human assistance, thus never incurring a cost basis. Justice demands that our laws provide a means of relief for persons, like plaintiff, who sustain such a casualty loss.

. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., introduced a bill relating to timber losses on January 28, 1970. It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. The bill reads as follows:
“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to the amount of deduction allowable for casualty losses to timber.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 165(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to amount of deduction for losses) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: ‘In the case of a loss sustained with respect to timber, arising from fire, storm, or other casualty, the amount, of the deduction for such loss shall not be less than the amount by which the fair market value of the timber immediately before the casualty exceeds the fair market value of the timber immediately after the casualty.’.
“(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
S. 3349, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).