This is an income tax refund case in which the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment December 23, 1963. The defendant filed its response and a cross motion for partial summary judgmеnt January 18, 1964. Each of the motions was accompanied by an affidavit and brief. The plaintiffs filed a reply brief and an additional affidavit January 24, 1964. *482 Nothing further has bеen filed, neither side has requested an oral hearing, and the motions are now before the court for disposition.
The plaintiffs summarized their factual cоntentions succinctly in their original brief as follows:
“The Complainants filed a joint 1960 U. S. Individual Income Tax Return on or before April 15, 1961. The Complainants deducted on thе said income tax return a casualty loss in the amount of $3,000.00 as ordinary loss under Section 165, I.R.C.1954. The District Director of Internal Revenue allowed the $3,-000.00 casualty lоss as a deduction, but in an audit of the Complainants’ 1960 tax return offset it against gains from sale of capital assets held for the production of income rаther than allowing it as an ordinary loss. The Complainants also deducted on their 1960 U. S. Individual Income Tax Return depreciation on rental property in the amount of $366.79. The Complainants sold the rental property in 1960 at a gain. The District Director in an audit of the tax return disallowed depreciation claimed on the rental property because said property was sold in the year 1960 at a gain.”
This summary is fully supported by the affidavits of Mr. Killebrew and his counsel.
In addition, thе plaintiffs, in their reply brief, specifically accepted as a fair presentation of the depreciation deduction issue the following statement from the defendant’s brief:
“Taxpayers also deducted on their income tax return depreciation of $366.79 on certain improvements on real еstate which they had rented for several years. This real estate was sold at a gain during 1960, the gain attributable to the value of the improvements being in excess of the $366.79 depreciation claimed thereon during 1960. * * * ”
The defendant joins the plaintiffs in asserting that a proper factual basis exists for a summary judgment on the dеpreciation deduction issue, but it contends that no summary judgment may be granted on the casualty loss issue because there is a genuine dispute as to the аmount of the loss. It offers no other defense on the casualty loss issue and has submitted no authorities on the merits of that issue.
The affidavits presented by the plаintiffs and the careful avoidance by the defendant’s affiant of any direct denial that the amount claimed was allowed in the administrative proceedings provide a basis for doubting if the claimed dispute is genuine. However, this need not be decided for present purposes. Rule 56(c) and (d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically contemplate that the court should determine such issues as are properly presented on motion for summary judgment and order such further proceedings as may be necessary to resolve any remaining.
The legal issue of the proper treatment of the casualty loss deduction, whatever its amount, has previously been litigated on precisely analogous facts in at least two reported cases, and both werе resolved against the government’s position. Maurer v. United States,
The gоvernment’s position on the depreciation issue is as unassailable as the plaintiffs’ position on the casualty loss item. The Sixth Circuit Court of Ap
*483
peals has already decided the point in the government’s favor. Cohn v. United States,
The plaintiffs place their principal reliance on S & A Co. v. United States,
Counsel will submit within 30 days from the entry of this mеmorandum an order either (1) directing the entry of an appropriate final judgment in accordance with this memorandum if the parties can agree оn the amount of the casualty loss, or (2) directing the entry of a partial summary judgment in accordance with this memorandum and specifying that the case stand fоr trial limited to the issue of the amount of the casualty loss.
On Motion for Reconsideration
The court entered a memorandum April 2, 1964, ruling, on cross-motions for summary judgment, that the plaintiffs were entitlеd to claim an uninsured casualty loss against ordinary income under I.R.C. (1954) § 165 rather than against capital gains under I.R.C. (1954) § 1231.
After entry of the memorandum, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, for suspension of the last paragraph of the memorandum pending determination of the motion for reconsideration, and for a hearing on the motion.
In support of the motion, the defendant submitted a copy of a memorandum previously submitted on a similar casualty loss issuе in another case. The defendant explained that it had not filed a similar brief in this case because of its belief that the existence of a dispute on the amount of the casualty loss foreclosed consideration of the legal issue.
The court is of the opinion that no further hearing is required and that thе motion is not well taken.
The only new matter presented in the additional brief consists of an analysis of congressional committee explanations of an exception to § 1231(a) added by the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, Public Law 85-866, 72 Stat. 1606. These explanations appear in Senate Report No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm.News, pp. 4862, 4863, 4992, 4993.
This same legislative history was available at the time of the two decisions on which the court relied in the original memorandum, Maurer v. United States,
If this congressional committee language were the only matter to be considered, the government’s case would be plausible. However, as indicated in the Maurer case, there is considerably more legislative history behind the two statutes involved than is indicated in the brief comments on this section appearing in the long committee report cited. Furthermore, to accept the construction of the language actually enacted that is urged by thе government might well raise serious questions as to congressional power to make the distinctions urged.
Certainly when the most reasonable reading of the language Congress ac
*484
tually chose to enact into law avoids a Constitutional question, it would be folly for the courts to look outside the statute for evidеnce indicating a different intent that might pose such a question. See Lynch v. Overholser,
Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion for reconsideration be, and it is hereby, denied, and counsel are directed to submit an order within thirty (30) days of the date of this order in accordance with the last paragraph of the memorandum of April 2, 1964.