(a) Deduction disallowed. No deduction shall be allowed under section 165(a) solely on account of a decline in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer when the decline is due to a fluctuation in the market price of the stock or to other similar cause. A mere shrinkage in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer, even though extensive, does not give rise to a deduction under section 165(a) if the stock has any recognizable value on the date claimed as the date of loss. No loss for a decline in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer shall be allowed as a deduction under section 165(a) except insofar as the loss is recognized under § 1.1002-1 upon the sale or exchange of the stock and except as otherwise provided in § 1.165-5 with respect to stock which becomes worthless during the taxable year.
(b) Stock owned by banks. (1) In the regulation of banks and certain other corporations, Federal and State authorities may require that stock owned by such organizations be charged off as worthless or written down to a nominal value. If, in any such case, this requirement is premised upon the worthlessness of the stock, the charging off or writing down will be considered prima facie evidence of worthlessness for purposes of section 165(a); but, if the charging off or writing down is due to a fluctuation in the market price of the stock or if no reasonable attempt to determine the worthlessness of the stock has been made, then no deduction shall be allowed under section 165(a) for the amount so charged off or written down.
(2) This paragraph shall not be construed, however, to permit a deduction under section 165(a) unless the stock owned by the bank or other corporation actually becomes worthless in the taxable year. Such a taxpayer owning stock which becomes worthless during the taxable year is not precluded from deducting the loss under section 165(a) merely because, in obedience to the specific orders or general policy of such supervisory authorities, the value of the stock is written down to a nominal amount instead of being charged off completely.
(c) Application to inventories. This section does not apply to a decline in the value of corporate stock reflected in inventories required to be taken by a dealer in securities under section 471. See § 1.471-5.
(d) Definition. As used in this section, the term “stock” means a share of stock in a corporation or a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Markwardt v. Comm'r, 64 T.C. 989 (Tax Ct. 1975).
· cites it 2× “In his brief, the petitioner, for the first time, argues that he is entitled to a casualty loss deduction under section 165(c)(3) as a result of his purchase from Mr.”
Scifo v. Comm'r, 68 T.C. 714 (Tax Ct. 1977).
· cites it 2× “As further specified in the regulations "A mere shrinkage in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer, even though extensive, does not give rise to a deduction under section 165(a) if the stock has any recognizable value on the date claimed as the date of loss.”
Textron, Inc. v. United States, 561 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir. 1977).
· cites it 2× “See also 26 C.F.R. 1.165-4(a) (1976). By any ordinary definition, Hawaiian's stock was quite worthless, as the district court found, in 1959.”
Padgett v. Comm'r, 53 T.C.M. 332 (Tax Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Secs. 1.165-4(a) and 1.165-5(f), Income Tax Regs.”
Furer v. Comm'r, 65 T.C.M. 2420 (Tax Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Under section 1.165-4(a), Income Tax Regs. : No deduction shall be allowed under section 165(a) solely on account of a decline in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer when the decline is due to a fluctuation in the market price of the stock or to other similar cause.”
Inductotherm Indus., Inc. v. Comm'r, 48 T.C.M. 167 (Tax Ct. 1984).
· cites it 2× “269(a) provided: (a) In General.--If-- (1) any person or persons acquire, or acquired on or after October 8, 1940, directly or indirectly, control of a corporation, or (2) any corporation acquires, or acquired on or after October 8, 1940, directly or indirectly, property of…”
Hart v. Comm'r, 1997 T.C. Memo. 11 (Tax Ct. 1997).
· cites it 2× “or one of its agents. Section 165(a) allows a deduction for any loss "sustained" during the taxable year and not compensated *21 for by insurance or otherwise, including losses arising from theft.”
Est. of Norris v. Comm'r, 42 T.C.M. 408 (Tax Ct. 1981).
· cites it 2× “A mere decline in the value of stock, short of total worthlessness, is not sufficient to establish a loss.”
Hawkins v. Comm'r, 53 T.C.M. 138 (Tax Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “This is a factual matter, as to which petitioners have the burden of proof, not only as to whether the securities became worthless at all, but also as to whether they became worthless in a year in issue.”
Goran v. Comm'r, 69 T.C.M. 2051 (Tax Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The speculation of petitioners' accountant is inadequate for this purpose.”
Garner v. Comm'r, 62 T.C.M. 1260 (Tax Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “"A mere shrinkage in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer, even though extensive, does not give rise to a deduction under section 165(a) if the stock has any recognizable value on the date claimed as the date of loss." Sec.”
Riley v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 46 (Tax Ct. 2016).
· cites it 4× “*52 As we've said, the parties agree on the law.”
— 26 C.F.R. § 1.165-4(a) — 1 case
Textron, Inc. v. United States, 561 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir. 1977).
“See also 26 C.F.R. 1.165-4(a) (1976). By any ordinary definition, Hawaiian's stock was quite worthless, as the district court found, in 1959.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.