Alexander v. Commissioner

1956 T.C. Memo. 2, 15 T.C.M. 9, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 294
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 10, 1956
DocketDocket Nos. 44169, 44170.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1956 T.C. Memo. 2 (Alexander 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
Alexander v. Commissioner, 1956 T.C. Memo. 2, 15 T.C.M. 9, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 294 (tax 1956).

Opinion

Harley Alexander v. Commissioner. Maude Alexander v. Commissioner.
Alexander v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 44169, 44170.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1956-2; 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 294; 15 T.C.M. (CCH) 9; T.C.M. (RIA) 56002;
January 10, 1956
*294 Arthur Glover, Esq., for the petitioners. Jackson L. Bailey, Esq., and R. S. Leigh, Esq., for the respondent.

TIETJENS

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in income tax for the year 1945:

Harley Alexander$2,641.60
Maude Alexander$2,575.57

These deficiencies result from the Commissioner's determination that petitioners are taxable on 45 per cent of the profits of a partnership, Alexander & Alexander, for the year 1945 as community income.

Petitioners petitioned this Court and we upheld the Commissioner's position, , on the basis that the doctrine of collateral estopped applied and that a prior decision of this Court for the years 1942, 1943, and 1944 against the same petitioners on income from the same partnership, which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in , concluded further consideration of the issue.

Petitioners applied to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review of our decision. The Court of Appeals set*295 aside the decision on the point at issue and remanded the proceeding "for a determination of the issues upon the facts" because "The record before the Tax Court, its opinion and the affirming opinion of this Court in the first proceeding, do not show determinations of fact and of legal issues such as preclude a consideration of the issues of fact and law in the second case." (Alexander v. Commissioner, C.A. 5, August 2, 1955.) Because of the remand we have reexamined the record before us and make the following

Findings of Fact

Petitioners are husband and wife. Harley Alexander will hereafter be referred to as petitioner. They filed their income tax returns for 1945 with the collector of internal revenue for the second district of Texas.

Petitioner is a farmer and stockman. In the early 1920's he and his brother Robert were partners in the cattle business. They lived close together and their business was conducted with informality and on a basis of mutual trust and understanding.

Petitioners have three children of whom the oldest is a daughter, Mary, born in 1920. She graduated in 1941 from Southern Methodist University. During her childhood she lived with her parents and acquired*296 the usual familiarity that a ranch child would with the cattle and ranching business.

Sometime in 1940 petitioner and his brother formed a second partnership. They inspected land near Kerrick, Texas, and agreed if they could induce Albert Moen to form the land they would take him into the partnership on a salary basis and with an interest therein. The projected agreement was reached and a partnership was formed in which Moen held a 10 per cent interest and the two brothers 45 per cent each. No written agreement was made. At the end of the years 1940 and 1941 work sheets showing the results of the business were prepared headed "Robert Alexander and Harley Alexander" and a tax return so headed was filed for 1940.

When this partnership was formed, petitioner told his brother that if it was successful he intended to give his interest to his daughter Mary. This was agreeable to Robert.

About this time petitioner purchased a tract adjoining the land operated by the partnership. This tract was rented to the partnership and rents were paid to petitioner at first and afterward to Mary. Petitioner and his wife deeded the tract to Mary under date of July 3, 1942, recorded January 15, 1943.

*297 Sometime in 1941 petitioner told Mary he intended to make her a gift of his share in the partnership, and at Christmas time when Mary made known her engagement to Walter Hart, petitioner decided he would make the transfer as a wedding present. To implement the intended transfer, Robert, Mary, and petitioner went to the First State Bank of Spearman, Spearman, Texas. There Robert and Mary executed a note for $7,210 and $7,000 of this amount was deposited in the name of Alexander & Alexander at the bank. On the same day, the following checks were drawn against this account:

PayeeAmountSigner of Check
(1) Robert Alexander$ 355.56Alexander & Alexander, Harley Alexander
(2) Robert Alexander3,155.71Alexander & Alexander, Harley Alexander
(3) Harley Alexander1,164.87Alexander & Alexander, by Robert Alexander
(4) First State Bank,1,982.94Alexander & Alexander, Harley Alexander
Spearman, Texas
The following notations appeared on the checks: (1) "Less 225 pd Robert Alexander to be refunded." (The back of the check has many items which appear to be amounts paid out for labor, the sub-total amount of which is $130.56, and another notation below the*298 sub-total, "Combine $225.00," making the total $355.56); (2) "1/2 of 133 cattle Okla. City"; (3) "Bal. on 1/2 of cattle bought at Oklahoma City"; (4) "Mary's note."

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1956 T.C. Memo. 2, 15 T.C.M. 9, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-commissioner-tax-1956.