McCoy v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Income realized by a wheat farmer on the sale of a farm on which there was a growing crop of wheat, held, ordinary income, and not capital gains, to the extent that it represented payment for the growing crop.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
LeMire, Judge:
Petitioner’s contention is that where land is sold in the State of Kansas on which there is a growing and unmatured wheat crop, the growing crop is a part of the real estate and is therefore a capital asset within the meaning of the statute (sec. 117, I. R. C.1). He cites a number of cases, such as Chapman v. Veach, 32 Kan. 167, 4 Pac. 100; Missouri Val. Land Co. v. Barwick, 50 Kan. 57, 31 Pac. 685, and Harrod v. Burke, 76 Kan. 909, holding that under the law of the State of Kansas, as well as the general rule, immature crops are a part of the real estate on which they…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Morgan v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Lyeth v. HoeySupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. PelzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Watson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Watson v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Bidart Bros., a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Lehman Co. of America, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- Meisgeier v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Bidart Bros. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.