From our private database of 39,700+ case briefs...
Popa v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
73 T.C. 130 (1980)
During the Vietnam War, Justin Popa (plaintiff) was an American businessman based in Saigon, South Vietnam. In April 1975, Popa left Saigon on a business trip to Thailand. A day or two later, Saigon was suddenly overrun by enemy forces, and all United States citizens were evacuated. Popa was unable to return to Saigon and had no reasonable hope of ever recovering his Saigon property or its value. Popa claimed a casualty-loss tax deduction for his property loss. The commissioner of internal revenue (commissioner) (defendant) disallowed the deduction, determining that Popa’s loss was not a casualty loss as defined by § 165(c)(3) of the federal tax code. Popa filed a petition challenging the commissioner’s determination.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sterrett, J.)
Dissent (Fay, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 645,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 645,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 39,700 briefs, keyed to 988 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.