Legal Opinion

Crawford v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided April 20, 1978No. Docket No. 517-76Published

The stock of an orchard farm corporation was owned 85 percent by H's father, 5 percent by H, and 10 percent by his brothers. The mortgage on the orchard property was foreclosed by the bank. The property was purchased by the bank at the mortgage foreclosure sale and later sold to petitioners. Held: Under the attribution rules of sec. 267(c)(2), I.R.C. 1954, as limited by sec. 179(d)(2)(A), H owns both his and his father's stock.

Read the full summary

The stock of an orchard farm corporation was owned 85 percent by H's father, 5 percent by H, and 10 percent by his brothers. The mortgage on the orchard property was foreclosed by the bank. The property was purchased by the bank at the mortgage foreclosure sale and later sold to petitioners. Held: Under the attribution rules of sec. 267(c)(2), I.R.C. 1954, as limited by sec. 179(d)(2)(A), H owns both his and his father's stock. As a result an investment credit is disallowed for "used section 38 property" since a prohibited family relationship, as established by sec. 48(c)(1), was formed,…

1Opinion of the Court

Dean E. Crawford and Mary A. Crawford, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent

Crawford v. Commissioner

Docket No. 517-76

United States Tax Court

70 T.C. 46; 1978 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 135;

April 20, 1978, Filed

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

The stock of an orchard farm corporation was owned 85 percent by H's father, 5 percent by H, and 10 percent by his brothers. The mortgage on the orchard property was foreclosed by the bank. The property was purchased by the bank at the mortgage foreclosure sale and later sold to petitioners. Held: Under the attribution rules of sec.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thompson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
  2. Crawford v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
  3. Don R. Thompson and Mildred Thompson v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API