Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200919040

CCA 200919040: Theft-loss procedure could not allow a duplicate deduction

Number
200919040
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Deductions For Losses
Topics
Income and deductions
Code sections
§ 165
Ruling dated
March 26, 2009
Publicly released
May 8, 2009
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel interpreted an unspecified revenue-procedure phrase as referring to amounts already paid and deducted, such as fees. It advised that any ambiguity had to be resolved consistently with settled law and the IRS position against double deductions. Without specific statutory authorization, a taxpayer could not deduct the same item twice or obtain the practical equivalent of doing so. The advice arose as a follow-up concerning a theft loss.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could ambiguous revenue-procedure language permit a second deduction, or its practical equivalent, for an item already deducted?
  • Outcome: Advice given: no duplicate deduction was available without specific statutory authorization.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 165; Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U.S. 62 (1934); Rev. Rul. 81-207; Ailing v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 323 (1994).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-326170-09 Number: 200919040
Release Date: 5/8/2009
Office: ----------
UILC: 165.00-00

From: --------------------
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM
To: ------------------
Cc: ------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Theft loss follow-up ---------

--------

We would interpret that as "amounts that were paid and deducted, such as fees" and to the extent
there's ambiguity say that the Revenue Procedure cannot be interpreted as violating settled law and
Service position that, without specific statutory authorization, you can't take a double deduction or the
practical equivalent of a double deduction for the same item. See Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292
U.S. 62 (1934); Rev. Rul. 81-207, 1981-2 C.B. 57; Ailing v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 323, 332-33 (1994).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace