Eyestone v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioner, in 1912, owning 3 farms in Kansas, entered into an agreement with his sons whereby each of the sons was to receive one-fourth of the real estate and one-fourth of the profits realized, and all were to devote their time and labor to the business and share the losses. Another farm was purchased in 1912 in the name of the petitioner. In 1919 certain oil royalty interests and oil runs were sold.
Read the full summary
The petitioner, in 1912, owning 3 farms in Kansas, entered into an agreement with his sons whereby each of the sons was to receive one-fourth of the real estate and one-fourth of the profits realized, and all were to devote their time and labor to the business and share the losses. Another farm was purchased in 1912 in the name of the petitioner. In 1919 certain oil royalty interests and oil runs were sold. Upon the evidence, held that a partnership existed between the father and the sons and that the income from the sale of the interests accrued in equal shares to the petitioner and his…
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK E. EYESTONE, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Eyestone v. Commissioner
Docket No. 6463.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
12 B.T.A. 1232; 1928 BTA LEXIS 3382;
July 9, 1928, Promulgated
The petitioner, in 1912, owning 3 farms in Kansas, entered into an agreement with his sons whereby each of the sons was to receive one-fourth of the real estate and one-fourth of the profits realized, and all were to devote their time and labor to the business and share the losses. Another farm was purchased in 1912 in the name of the petitioner. In 1919 certain oil royalty…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eyestone v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Scruggs v. RussellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1858