Mamula v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioners reported gain from sales of real estate in 1959 upon the deferred-payment method -- a method inconsistent with the installment sales method. Held, they made an election not to use the installment sales method and were not thereafter entitled to have their tax computed upon the installment sales method when it later turned out that the deferred-payment method was unavailable to them. Sec. 453, I.R.C. 1954; sec. 1.453-8(b), Income Tax Regs.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Raum, Judge:
Petitioners, relying upon their accountant’s advice, reported the sales in issue on the deferred-payment method, a method which permits the tax-free recovery of basis prior to reporting taxable gain. This was not a choice blindly made. The accountant outlined the three possible methods of reporting the sales, and petitioner consciously accepted the alternative selected by the accountant. The deliberate attempt to use that method was in fact an election not to employ the installment method, even though, as a matter of hindsight, the deferred-payment method turned out to have…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pacific National Co. v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- S. Nicholas Jacobs and Dolores I. Jacobs v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Farber v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Susie K. Ackerman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- United States v. EversmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Pollack v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Reaver v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Dougherty v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
- Peter Mamula and Dorothy R. Mamula v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Silver Queen Motel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.