Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner

1959 T.C. Memo. 44, 18 T.C.M. 202, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 1959
DocketDocket No. 50695.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1959 T.C. Memo. 44 (Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner, 1959 T.C. Memo. 44, 18 T.C.M. 202, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210 (tax 1959).

Opinion

Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner.
Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 50695.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1959-44; 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210; 18 T.C.M. (CCH) 202; T.C.M. (RIA) 59044;
February 27, 1959

*210 Held, on the facts presently before us petitioner did not hold certain timber primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Held, further, amounts received by petitioner in 1948 and 1949 from Coast Redwood Co. for timber cut by the latter in those years from the property of petitioner are properly taxable as capital gains on sale of property held for more than six months.

James C. Dezendorf, Esq., and Marshall C. Cheney, Jr., Esq., for the petitioner. John D. Picco, Esq., for the respondent.

VAN FOSSAN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

This proceeding involves Federal income taxes for the years 1948 and 1949 in the aggregate amount of $38,304.21.

In an opinion promulgated September 28, 1956, this Court, on the facts then before us, held that petitioner was not entitled to capital gains treatment under section 117(k)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19391 on amounts received by petitioner in 1948 and 1949 from Coast Redwood Co. for timber cut by it from the property of petitioner. Ah Pah Redwood Co., 26 T.C. 1197 (1956).

*211 Petitioner appealed, and on December 13, 1957, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, affirming our holding as to allowable depletion and that petitioner was not entitled to capital gains treatment under section 117(k)(2). Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner, 251 Fed. (2d) 163. The appellate court noted, however, that in second supplemental briefs, filed at the request of the court, both parties had called attention to the fact that capital gains treatment is available for absolute sales of timber under either section 117(a)(1) or 117(j)(1), provided, that the six-month-holding-period requirement is met, and that the timber was not held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of trade or business. The court concluded that the only factor preventing the application of these last-mentioned Code sections to the case at bar was that petitioner may have held the timber primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business. The court then remanded the case for further proceedings and a determination as to whether petitioner was entitled to capital gains treatment under section 117(a)(1) or (j)(1).

The only*212 question presently before us is whether petitioner held the timber primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business.

A new stipulation of facts with accompanying exhibits, filed by the parties pursuant to a motion granted by this Court on July 11, 1958, has clarified the facts in issue. In this situation a new or revised findings of fact is required.

Findings of Fact

The petitioner, a California corporation, was organized on June 23, 1947. The returns for the periods here involved were filed with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Oregon. Petitioner used the calendar year for reporting its income.

The articles of incorporation reveal that petitioner was formed, inter alia, to engage in the business of buying, selling, and owning timber and of carrying on a general logging and lumber business. This purpose included the manufacturing, selling, processing, and shipping of lumber and related products; the construction, ownership, and operation of sawmills, tanbark mills, and pulp mills, as well as tramroads, railroads, and steamships; and the acquisition, holding, improving, encumbering, developing, and exchanging of real and personal*213 property of every kind.

The capital stock of petitioner was originally owned by A. K. Wilson, who was its president from its inception and during the taxable years.

On September 29, 1947, all of petitioner's outstanding capital stock was acquired by International Pacific Pulp & Paper Company, hereinafter referred to as International, an Oregon corporation which, during the years involved, was actively engaged in a substantial sawmill and lumber business. Its plant was located in Portland, Oregon.

Wilson owned one share of the common and five shares of the preferred stock of International. He was its president during the taxable years in question. The majority of International's stock was owned by Union Bond & Trust Company.

Coast Redwood Co., hereinafter called Coast, was incorporated under the laws of California in 1945 for the purpose of engaging in the business of logging and manufacturing lumber. During the years in question its sawmill was located in Arcata, Humboldt County, California. The capital stock of Coast was owned by Wilson and members of his family. Wilson has been its president since its inception.

Union Bond & Trust Company, hereinafter referred to as Union, *214 is an Oregon corporation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ah Pah Redwood Co. v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 1197 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1959 T.C. Memo. 44, 18 T.C.M. 202, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-pah-redwood-co-v-commissioner-tax-1959.