David Meade Peebles and Mary Crockett Peebles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fourth Circuit

David Meade Peebles and Mary Crockett Peebles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

249 F.2d 92, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 722, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4969

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1957

Docket7431

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 92 (David Meade Peebles and Mary Crockett Peebles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Meade Peebles and Mary Crockett Peebles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 249 F.2d 92, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 722, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4969 (4th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question involved is whether gains derived by the taxpayer from the sale of various parcels of real estate in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949 are to be treated as ordinary income or as capital gains. The Tax Court, affirming action by the Commissioner, held that the lands thus sold were held by taxpayer primarily for sale in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of sections 117(a) (1) and 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117(a) (1), (j) and that the gains derived from the sale were taxable as ordinary income. The facts are fully set forth in the findings and opinion of the Tax Court and need not be repeated here. Taxpayer contends that they support his contention; but the conclusion to be drawn therefrom is a pure question of fact and we are bound by the Tax Court’s decision with respect thereto unless we are prepared to hold that its decision is clearly wrong. We cannot so hold but, on the contrary, think that it was clearly correct for reasons adequately stated in the Court’s opinion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question involved is whether gains derived by the taxpayer from the sale of various parcels of real estate in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949 are to be treated as ordinary income or as capital gains. The Tax Court, affirming action by the Commissioner, held that the lands thus sold were held by taxpayer primarily for sale in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of sections 117(a) (1) and 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117(a) (1), (j) and that the gains derived from the sale were taxable as ordinary income. The facts are fully set forth in the findings and opinion of the Tax Court and need not be repeated here. Taxpayer contends that they support his contention; but the conclusion to be drawn therefrom is a pure question of fact and we are bound by the Tax Court’s decision with respect thereto unless we are prepared to hold that its decision is clearly wrong. We cannot so hold but, on the contrary, think that it was clearly correct for reasons adequately stated in the Court’s opinion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 92, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 722, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-meade-peebles-and-mary-crockett-peebles-v-commissioner-of-internal-ca4-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack