Eger v. United States

172 Ct. Cl. 629, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5220, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 24, 1965 WL 1442
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 16, 1965
DocketNo. 235-63
StatusPublished

This text of 172 Ct. Cl. 629 (Eger v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eger v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 629, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5220, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 24, 1965 WL 1442 (cc 1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is a suit to recover alleged overpay-ments of income taxes for the year 1959, arising from the capital gain on the sale of real property, the interest in which was received by plaintiffs as beneficiaries of a will. The issue involved is the determination of the fair market value of the subject property as of March 3, 1958, the date of the testator’s death, for use in computing plaintiffs’ capital gains resulting from the sale and the taxes due thereon. Plaintiffs would like to have the value established at $273,000 which was the market value a year later and the contract price of the- sale. Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests a valuation of $222,000. Defendant’s valuation is $166,000. Trial Commissioner Marion T. Bennett filed his report of findings of fact on March 15,1965, wherein it is found that the fair mar-[630]*630feet value of the subject property as of March 3, 1958, was $185,000 on which base the amount of the tax is subject to computation. The parties have filed elections to submit the case on the commissioner’s report without exceptions and briefs pursuant to Rule 62 and the case is thus submitted to the court without oral argument. Upon consideration of the pleadings filed herein and the findings of fact of the trial commissioner, the court approves the said findings and concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to recover in accordance therewith and judgment is entered for plaintiffs with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Rule 47(c).

FINDINGS 03? FACT

The court having considered the evidence and the report of Trial Commissioner Marion T. Bennett, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Orville X). and Patsy S. Eger (1) and Ruth E. Mullins (2) are residents of Polk County, Florida, and bring this action for the recovery of Internal Revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously and illegally assessed and collected. The overpayments alleged are for the calendar year (tax year) 1959. The action is timely filed, arises out of the same transactions and occurrences, and presents common questions of law and fact as to the claims of the plaintiffs.

2. On or about March 17, 1960, plaintiffs Orville D. and Patsy S. Eger, husband and wife, filed a joint individual income tax return for the year 1959 and paid taxes as reflected therein in the sum of $12,369.94. On or about April 14, 1960, plaintiff Ruth E. Mullins, a widow, filed her individual income tax return for the year 1959 and paid taxes as reflected therein in the sum of $6,943.24. Plaintiffs’ returns were filed with, and the sums were paid to the District Director, Internal Revenue Service, United States Treasury Department, Jacksonville, Florida.

3. Plaintiffs were beneficiaries named in the will of Magdalene S. Eger, who died a resident of Polk County, Florida, on March 3,1958. By virtue of the will each of the plaintiffs Orville D. Eger and Ruth E. Mullins was devised and re[631]*631ceived an undivided two-sixths’ interest in the following described property in Polk County:

E i/2 of NW % of SE % of Sec. 17, T. 31 S., R. 26 E., also known as Eger grove No. 1.
W i/2 of NE % of SW % of Sec. 8, T. 31 S., R. 26 E, also -known as Eger grove No. 4.
S 1/2 of SE y4 of NE 14 of Sec. 20, T. 31 S., R. 20 E., also known as Eger grove No. 5.

4. For the purposes of the federal estate tax on the estate of Magdalene S. Eger, deceased, the above-described property was determined to have a fair market value of $127,750 as of March 3, 1958. The estate tax became due June 3, 1959, and has been paid as assessed. None of the plaintiffs was an executor, administrator, co-executor or co-administrator of the estate nor did any of the plaintiffs participate in or control the determination of the fair market value of the property for federal estate tax purposes.

5. On March 26,1959, plaintiffs, together with the owners of the other interest in the property, contracted to sell the property on an installment basis for the sum of. $273,000 to Bernard S. Varn, .agent for himself and David H. Varn, Jr., Mary V. Fort, Nancy V. Bevis and Fidelia V. Jahns, together with all improvements on the property except any part of the 1957-1958 citrus fruit crop that may have been pn the citrus trees on March 3,1958. The purchasers paid $113,500 in cash and the remainder, $159,500, was to be paid ratably over 5 years. The purchasers were members of the .Varn family which owned 1,500. acres of citrus groves and a .controlling or substantial interest in two packing houses which had been buying, prior to March 3, 1958, some of the fruit from the three Eger groves. The Varn family owned groves contiguous to each of the Eger groves and shared water with the Eger groves. The sales contract was closed June 9,1959.

6. In their respective individual income tax returns for the year 1959, plaintiffs computed their respective capital gains on the sale of the property by using as its unadjusted basis the sum of $127,750. After deducting therefrom the depreciation taken and adding expenses of the sale, the former owners realized a net profit of $148,592.75, the profit to each of plaintiffs thus computed being, respectively,, two-sixths [632]*632thereof, or $49,530.91. Plaintiffs Orville D. Eger and Ruth E. Mullins each collected $22,666.66 during the tax year 1959.

7. The amended 1959 return of Orville D. and Patsy S. Eger reflected an overpayment of income taxes in the sum of $3,584.36 and a claim for refund in that amount was duly filed on or about November 7,1960, with the District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Jacksonville, Florida. The amended 1959 return of Ruth E. Mullins reflected an overpayment of income taxes in the sum of $3,921.78. A claim for refund in the amount of $3,018.52 was duly filed by plaintiff Mullins on or about December 16,1960, with the District Director. The Director mailed notice of disallowance in full of the Eger claim on February 9,1962, and a similar notice of disallowance in full of the claim of Ruth E. Mullins was mailed to her by the Director on December 28, 1961.

8. The March 3, 1958, fair market value of the above-described property inherited by plaintiffs from Magdalene S. Eger, as finally determined by this action, is the unadjusted basis for determining plaintiffs’ gains on the sale of such property.

9. The three 20-acre groves (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Eger groves) were known as groves Nos. 1, 4 and 5. They are not contiguous. They are located about 10 miles northeast of the town of Fort Meade, Florida, on a long ridge in the section of Polk County known as the Lake Hendry Section. There is access to Eger groves Nos. 1 and 5 by a paved road and to grove No. 4 by a clay road. They are each bordered on three sides by other citrus groves. The soil hi the groves is a Norfolk sand, a very heavy rich soil that does not contain white sand which is undesirable for citrus. All of the trees had been budded on virus-free rough lemon rootstock and none contained burrowing nematodes or had signs of disease. The groves had been fertilized, sprayed, irrigated and otherwise cared for in accordance with the top cultural practices of the time. Each grove had a permanently installed underground waterline connected to a deep well for irrigation purposes. Groves Nos. 1 and 4 were furnished water from a neighbor’s well. Grove No. 5 had its own deep well. The groves are from 190 to 220 feet above sea level and each grove has excellent air and water drainage. [633]

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 Ct. Cl. 629, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5220, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 24, 1965 WL 1442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eger-v-united-states-cc-1965.