Cramer v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
55 T.C. 1125 (1971)
Facts
From 1964–1966, Cramer (plaintiff) paid property taxes on three different properties. The first property was located on Auburn Street. In 1963, Cramer sold the Auburn residence to Osborn, who agreed to pay the sales price in monthly installments in addition to the property taxes. Cramer retained record title to the property. Osborn defaulted on his payments during 1964 and 1965. As a result, Cramer paid the property taxes for those years and initiated foreclosure proceedings against Osborn. She regained possession of the property on February 18, 1966. Cramer sold the residence soon after and paid the property tax for that year as well. The second property was located on Atkinson Street. It belonged to Cramer’s ailing mother. Beginning in 1965, Cramer’s mother was hospitalized from time to time. During this period, Cramer took care of the Atkinson residence, paying the property taxes for 1965 and 1966 with her own money. In 1967, Cramer’s mother transferred title to the residence to Cramer. The third property was located on Clearview Street, which Cramer purchased shortly after selling her Auburn residence in 1963. She paid property taxes on the residence in 1964, 1965, and 1966. Cramer deducted her property tax expenditures on all three residences from 1964–1966. The Commissioner disputed the deductions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Featherston, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
