Hutchinson v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
HELD: Under the alternative cost method of Rev. Proc. 92-29, 1992-1 C.B. 748, a real estate developer may allocate to its bases in lots sold $ 3,707,662 in estimated construction costs relating to common improvements. HELD, FURTHER, $ 5,861,595 in estimated, future-period interest expense relating to common improvements does not qualify under the alternative cost method for allocation to the developer's bases in lots sold.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Swift, Judge:
These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion. For 1994, respondent determined the following deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax:
Petitioners Deficiency
David C. Hutchinson. $442,746
Isaac M. Kalisvaart and Francien Kalisvaart-Valk . 358,095
William T. and Sharon L. Criswell. 188,862
Robert S. and Judeen M. Bobosky . 128,054
The issues for decision involve whether, under the alternative cost method of Rev. Proc. 92-29, 1992-1 C.B. 748 (Rev. Proc. 92-29), a real estate developer, in calculating gain on the sale of residential lots sold in 1994, may…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Weiss v. WeinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Grodt & McKay Realty, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Shea v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1999
- United States v. Factors & Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- TG Mo. Corp. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2009
- ADVO, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2013
- Amergen Energy Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Widemon v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
- Advo, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.