Andrew Tell Inv. Co. v. Commissioner

1970 T.C. Memo. 130, 29 T.C.M. 547, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 227
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 28, 1970
DocketDocket Nos. 3986-67 - 3992-67.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1970 T.C. Memo. 130 (Andrew Tell Inv. 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
Andrew Tell Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 1970 T.C. Memo. 130, 29 T.C.M. 547, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 227 (tax 1970).

Opinion

Andrew Tell Investment Co., et al, 1 Petitioners v. Commissioner.
Andrew Tell Inv. Co. v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 3986-67 - 3992-67.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1970-130; 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 227; 29 T.C.M. (CCH) 547; T.C.M. (RIA) 70130;
May 28, 1970, Filed
Robert D. Collins, 700 Phoenix Title & Tr. Bldg., Phoenix, Ariz.,and Allen L. Feinstein, for the petitioners. Richard Rink, for the respondent.

TIETJENS

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

TIETJENS, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax of petitioners in these consolidated*229 proceedings as follows:

PetitionerTaxable YearDeficiency 2Overas-
Endingsessment
Andrew Tell Investment Co.,9-30-61$8,781.92
Docket No. 3986-67
9-30-6227,617.67
9-30-636,152.24
9-30-6415,750.58
Tell Investments Co., Docket9-30-6111,959.28
No. 3987-67
9-30-62None
9-30-63None
9-30-64None$95.03
Ambel Investment Co., Docket12-31-612,106.52
No. 3988-67
12-31-6218,571.07
12-31-6313,491.66
12-31-644,962.49
Andrew P. Tell and Mary J.12-31-6158,477.06
Tell, Docket No. 3989-67
12-31-6228,590.07
12-31-63618.96
12-31-6470,500.90
Tell Construction Co., Docket6-30-62679.94
No. 3990-67
6-30-632,667.75
6-30-642,472.03
Tell Land Co., Docket No.3-31-62370.49
3991-67
3-31-63617.23
3-31-6423.65
3-31-655,462.68
Mary Tell Investment Co.,9-30-6115,008.64
Docket No. 3992-67
9-30-6230,430.69
9-30-6328,504.47
9-30-6424,524.29

*230 We must decide whether Andrew P. Tell and members of his family acquired control of the petitioner corporations (other than Investments) for the principal purpose of evading or avoiding Federal income tax by securing the benefit of additional surtax exemptions, as provided by section 11(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 3 We must also decide whether the gains petitioners realized from their sales 549 of certain real estate properties must be taxed as ordinary income.

Findings of Fact

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

Related

Burnet v. Harmel
287 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Hort v. Commissioner
313 U.S. 28 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Kieselbach v. Commissioner
317 U.S. 399 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner
350 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Malat v. Riddell
383 U.S. 569 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Commodores Point Terminal Corp. v. Commissioner
11 T.C. 411 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Heebner v. Commissioner
32 T.C. 1162 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Dillier v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 762 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Municipal Bond Corp. v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 219 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1970 T.C. Memo. 130, 29 T.C.M. 547, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-tell-inv-co-v-commissioner-tax-1970.