Confirm favorite deletion?
Income Tax Keyed to Lind
Wasnok v. Commissioner
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Petitioners’, Stephen and Mary Wasnok, are married and resided in Fullerton, California. In 1960 Petitioners bought a home in Cincinnati, Ohio where they were living at the time. After moving to California they attempted to sell the property unsuccessfully. In 1961 Petitioners leased the property for $225 a month. In 1965 Petitioner became unable to make the payments on the mortgage and deeded the property back to the bank in satisfaction of their note in the amount of $24,421.04. They filed income tax returns for the years 1961 through 1964 and claimed total depreciation of $4,697. Petitioners did not file returns in 1965 and 1966. In 1967 they claimed a capital loss carry-forward deduction in the amount of $1,000. In 1968 they claimed another capital loss carry-forward of $389. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not allow the capital loss carry-forward deductions arguing that it was an ordinary loss sustained in 1965 and fully deductible in 1965.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.