Barrow v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 123, 45 T.C.M. 935, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 663
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 9, 1983
DocketDocket No. 29871-81
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1983 T.C. Memo. 123 (Barrow 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
Barrow v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 123, 45 T.C.M. 935, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 663 (tax 1983).

Opinion

JOHN GUY BARROW and ALMA MAE BARROW, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Barrow v. Commissioner
Docket No. 29871-81
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-123; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 663; 45 T.C.M. (CCH) 935; T.C.M. (RIA) 83123;
March 9, 1983.
John Guy Barrow, for the petitioners.
Willie Fortenberry, for the respondent.

SCOTT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SCOTT, Judge: This case was called from the calendar at Jacksonville, Florida, on September 20, 1982, for hearing on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted filed March 8, 1982. When the case was called, *664 petitioner John Guy Barrow appeared and stated to the Court that there were facts not alleged in the petition that he could present which would show that there was a cause of action to be litigated in this case. The Court then agreed to accept a stipulation of facts by the parties and permit respondent to file a motion for summary judgment based on that stipulation and deem respondetn's motion to dismiss as moot. On September 22, 1982, the parties filed a stipulation of facts with exhibits attached thereto and respondent, based on that stipulation, filed a motion for summary judgment.

The pleadings and the stipulated facts show that respondent determined a deficiency of $2,846.33 in petitioners' income tax for the calendar year 1979. The issue for decision is whether $12,164.63 of interest received by petitioners on tax sale certificates issued by counties and municipalities of the State of Florida is exempt from tax under section 103(a). 1

Petitioners, husband and wife, who resided in Hillard Florida, at the time of the*665 filing of their petition in this case, filed a joint Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1979. During the years prior to 1979, John Guy Barrow (petitioner) would obtain, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Code, documents entitled "Tax Sale Certificate." These documents would read--

TAX SALE CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA

OFFICE OF TAX COLLECTOR

I,      , Tax Collector for the County of      , in the State of Florida, do hereby certify that I did, at public auction, pursuant to notice given by law as required, on this the     day of      , 19  , sell to

the lands hereinafter described for the sum of     DOLLARS and     CENTS, said sum being the amount due for taxes, interest, costs and charges of the described lands for the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and      , that the above named purchaser of this certificate or assigns, will therefore be entitled to a deed of conveyance of such lands in accordance with the law unless the same shall be redeemed within such periods of time as are provided by law, by payment of such amount and interest thereon from the date of this certificate at the rate of eighteen*666 percent per annum, if purchased by the county or twelve percent per annum (or at such lower rate of interest as may be bid by any purchaser other than the county).

Said lands are described as follows: to wit:

[Description]

The interest rate bid at the sale under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, was     percent.

in the County of      , State of Florida.

WITNESS my hand at      , Florida, this     day of      , 19  .

Signature:      , Tax Collector

During 1979, petitioner received $12,164.63 interest on "Tax Certificates" which he had obtained, which were as above set forth with the blanks appropriately filled.

It is petitioner's position that even though the tax sale certificates which he obtained from various counties of the State of Florida recite that the lands described in the certificates are sold to him for the sum of the taxes due thereon plus interest, cost and other charges, and that he will be entitled to a conveyance of such land, unless within the time provided by law the same shall have been redeemed, in fact what he had done was to lend money to the State of Florida or a county or municipality thereof, secured by land on*667 which taxes had been assessed and not paid. Petitioner contends that for this reason the interest he received was on the obligation of a State, territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision thereof and therefore exempt from tax under section 103.

It is respondent's position that petitioner had not lent money to the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of section 103, but rather that petitioner had purchased a right to the lien for taxes that the state, county or municipality had, and a right to receive those lands under a tax deed unless the owner who had defaulted in the tax payment with respect to the land exercised his right of redemption and paid off the past due taxes together with cost, penalties and interest, and interest from the date that the tax sale certificates had been issued to petitioner until the date of payment. It is respondent's position that the interest was effectively received by petitioner from the delinquent taxpayers against whom the tax was assessed and not as interest on an obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof.

Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 192.011 (West*668 Supp. 1981) provides that the county tax assessor shall assess all property located within his county, and Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 192.053 (West Supp. 1981) provides that a lien for all taxes, penalties and interest shall attach to any property as of the date of assessment and shall continue in full force and effect until discharged by payment as provided in Chapter 197. Fla. Stat.

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

Related

American National Bank of Austin v. United States
421 F.2d 442 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Tom M. Drew and Justa Drew v. United States
551 F.2d 85 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)
Smith v. City of Arcadia
185 So. 2d 762 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Wiltsie v. United States
3 F. Supp. 743 (Court of Claims, 1933)
Beebe v. State Ex Rel. Hillsborough County
151 So. 298 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Newlin Machinery Corp. v. Commissioner
28 T.C. 837 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
King v. Commissioner
77 T.C. 1113 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 T.C. Memo. 123, 45 T.C.M. 935, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-commissioner-tax-1983.