Black v. Commissioner

6 T.C.M. 167, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 301
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 20, 1947
DocketDocket Nos. 10360, 10361.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 6 T.C.M. 167 (Black 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
Black v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.M. 167, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 301 (tax 1947).

Opinion

Julius B. Black v. Commissioner. Clyde W. Black v. Commissioner.
Black v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 10360, 10361.
United States Tax Court
1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 301; 6 T.C.M. (CCH) 167; T.C.M. (RIA) 47039;
February 20, 1947
*301 Marion Hirschburg, Esq., 300 1/2 Main St., Ames, Ia., for the petitioners. Harold H. Hart, Esq., for the respondent.

LEMIRE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

At the request of counsel for petitioners and respondent the above cases were consolidated for trial. The case of Clyde W. Black involving a deficiency in income tax for the year 1943 in the sum of $12,763.76. The case of Julius B. Black involved a deficiency for the same year in the sum of $12,458.82. These deficiencies are based upon adjustments made for both the years 1942 and 1943 and include the unforgiven portion of the 1942 assessment.

A small part of the deficiency in each case arises out of adjustments of expense, depreciation and contributions which the petitioners claimed in their individual returns and in partnership returns of Clyde Black & Son for the years 1942 and 1943. The petition contains no allegations of error concerning these minor adjustments and no evidence was offered in regard thereto. The major part of the deficiency asserted in each case arises out of the refusal of the Commissioner to recognize Maude R. Black and Helen L. Black, wives of Clyde W. Black and Julius B. Black, *302 respectively, as members of the partnership of Clyde Black & Son, as shown in the partnership returns filed with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Iowa, at Des Moines, for the years 1942 and 1943. The Commissioner ruled that only Clyde W. Black and Julius B. Black were partners and that they were each taxable during those years on one-half of the partnership income.

The sole question presented for determination is whether or not during the years in question Maude R. Black and Helen L. Black were members of the partnership of Clyde Black & Son and each entitled to a one-fourth distributive share of the net income of the partnership.

Findings of Fact

The petitioners, father and son, are farmers residing near the City of Ames, Iowa, engaged in the business of raising hybrid seed corn. From the time Julius B. Black became a member of the firm of Clyde Black & Son they raised and sold two types of such hybrid seed corn, namely, single-cross for sale to other hybrid growers and doublecross for sale to farmers for planting. The single-cross type is produced by crossing two inbred lines of parent seed and the double-cross is produced by crossing two single-cross lines*303 of parent seed.

In both instances two rows of what is referred to as the male seed is planted alternately with four to six rows of so-called female seed. The rows of male corn are allowed to grow normally but the rows of female corn are detassled as soon as the tassels begin to appear so that the silks on the ears of corn in the female rows are pollenated from the tassels in the male rows. This detasseling must be done at the proper time to prevent open-pollenation and constitutes quite an important and burdensome task in connection with hybrid seed corn production.

Prior to 1934, neither Clyde W. Black nor Maude R. Black had any technical or practical training in hybrid seed corn production. They purchased seed stock from Iowa State College that year and information concerning the production of said seed corn was furnished them by the college. Some assistance was also given them by the school in connection with the marketing of their product. Some hogs, cattle, hay, small grain and other farm products were raised and marketed by Clyde Black & Son during the years in question but these products were largely incidental to the seed corn operation.

Clyde W. Black, the father, is*304 62 years old. He graduated from Iowa State College agricultural school at Ames, Iowa, in 1910. Within a few years thereafter he married Maude R. Black and for many years was engaged in farming in Dallas County, Iowa. At that time he raised and sold open-pollenated seed corn. In the years 1918 to 1920, Clyde W. Black owned some land in Dallas County, Iowa, but between the years 1920 and 1934 his farming operations were not profitable and he lost all of his property of every kind and was indebted to banks and insurance companies to the extent of $1,400. Julius B. Black, the son, in 1934 was about 17 years old. He had finished high school and had entered Iowa State College in the autumn of 1933. In February, 1934, Clyde W. Black and his wife, Maude R. Black, desiring to help their son in completing his education at Iowa State College, rented a small farm of 26 acres on the outskirts of the City of Ames, Iowa, and moved to that city.

Prior to moving to Ames, Clyde W. Black had suffered an injury to his foot that left him permanently lame, and at about the time of moving he had fallen and broken some ribs which incapacitated him for rendering much assistance in connection with the farm*305 operation during the year 1934. As a means of livelihood and to help support the family, including the son, Julius B. Black, he sold automobile insurance in the City of Ames. During that interval his wife took almost complete charge of the farm operations. During 1934 they started raising doublecross hybrid seed corn for sale to corn growers. They procured hired help to do the field work, except that they did the detasseling themselves. Only about 184 bushels of seed corn were raised during that first summer. Maude R. Black did all of the work of drying, sorting and preparing the corn for sale, and also did all of the advertising, corresponding, kept all books and records incident thereto, and did all work in connection with the sale of the seed corn and collection therefor.

Although still operating on a small scale, they increased their production during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937. Clyde W. Black devoted more time to looking after the field or outside work. His wife assisted him regularly in the outside work and also managed and controlled all of the inside or office work, consisting of hiring help, advertising for and corresponding with purchasers, looking after the sale and*306 delivery to customers and making collections.

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

Related

Commissioner v. Tower
327 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Zukaitis v. Commissioner
3 T.C. 814 (U.S. Tax Court, 1944)
Marks v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 659 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 T.C.M. 167, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-commissioner-tax-1947.