Phipps v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The cost of the part of the real estate involved in this case, which was sold in the years 1922 and 1923, was, under the 1921 Act, a capital investment, and the profits made thereon are liable to tax under section 206(b) of the 1921 Act. 2. Such of said real estate as was sold in 1924 and subsequent years constituted, under the 1924 Act, property held primarily for sale in the course of the taxpayer's business, and the profits realized thereon are taxable under sections…
Read the full summary
1. The cost of the part of the real estate involved in this case, which was sold in the years 1922 and 1923, was, under the 1921 Act, a capital investment, and the profits made thereon are liable to tax under section 206(b) of the 1921 Act. 2. Such of said real estate as was sold in 1924 and subsequent years constituted, under the 1924 Act, property held primarily for sale in the course of the taxpayer's business, and the profits realized thereon are taxable under sections 210 and 211 of the Revenue Act of 1924.
1Opinion of the Court
*1295OPINION.
Love:
Respondent contends that petitioners were each members of a partnership entitled “ H. W. Robbins Co.,” created to handle this transaction. We are not of that opinion. There is no evidence whatever of the existence of such a partnership, except the so-called partnership returns for 1922, 1923, and 1924, and the individual returns of petitioners. It does not appear that such an information return was filed for 1925, although at least one lot from this tract was sold in that year. On the contrary, we think that there is persuasive evidence that no such partnership existed. It has…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hauk v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- Burkhard Inv. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1938
- Dunigan v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Phipps v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930