Estate of G. Topper v. Commissioner

5 T.C.M. 697, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 113

• Court: United States Tax Court
• Decided: August 8, 1946
• Docket: Docket Nos. 5011 and 5012.
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Estate of G. M. Topper, Deceased, T. J. Topper, Executor v. Commissioner. T. J. Topper v. Commissioner.

Estate of G. Topper v. Commissioner

Docket Nos. 5011 and 5012.

United States Tax Court

1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 113; 5 T.C.M. (CCH) 697; T.C.M. (RIA) 46193;

August 8, 1946

---

Herbert F. Baker, C.P.A., 525 Market St., San Francisco 5, Calif., and A. D. Schaffer, Esq., for the petitioners. T. M. Mather, Esq., and A. J. Hurley, Esq., for the respondent.

---

MURDOCK

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax for 1941, $679.93 against G. M. Topper and $1,939.78 against T. J. Topper. The Commissioner disallowed a deduction of $4,524.77 in determining the deficiency against T. J. Topper. That action is assigned as error in the T. J. Topper petition. The Commissioner conceded in his brief that he erred as alleged. The actual amount paid was $4,607.10, but only $4,524.77 is claimed by the petitioner. Two issues are presented for decision. One is whether the Commissioner erred in his treatment of the sale of an apartment building. The other is whether he erred in holding that a part of the income of each petitioner was separate rather than community income.

Findings of Fact

T. J. Topper is an individual. G. M. Topper was his wife. She died on April 15, 1944 and the petition was filed by her executor. Each taxpayer filed a separate individual income tax return for the calendar year 1941 with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of California.

T. J. and G. M. Topper were married in 1917. They lived together incalifornia from that time until the wife died. G. M. had no property in 1917. T. J.'s net worth at that time was between $1,000 and $1,500. He was then engaged in operating a small sheet metal shop as sole proprietor. He owned no real estate at that time. The business was incorporated in 1922 at which time all shares of stock were issued in the name of T. J. Later he gave a few shares to employees. The corporation was dissolved at the end of 1936 and thereafter, through 1941, T. J. operated it as a sole proprietorship. The record does not show what became of the interests given to employees. The net worth of the business at the close of 1940 was about $50,000.

G. M. worked in the business on a fulltime basis for several years after 1917. Thereafter she assisted occasionally. She was always interested in and familiar with the business. Her husband consulted her frequently in regard to the business. They had an unwritten understanding beginning shortly after their marriage that the business belonged to both in equal shares.

The mother of G. M. acquired an apartment house prior to 1930. The mother died in 1930 at which time G. M. and her brother inherited the property in equal shares. They operated the property as a partnership until it was sold in 1941. G. M. devoted her full time to managing the property both before and after her mother's death. There never was much income derived from the property. G. M. and T. J. had an unwritten understanding that the one-half interest in the property inherited by G. M. belonged equally to both G. M. and T. J.

The apartment property, consisting of land, building and furnishings was sold as a unit on June 6, 1941. The price at which it was sold was $27,500.

The petitioners each reported their 1941 income from all sources and their deductions upon a community property basis, i.e., each reported one-half thereof.

The Commissioner, in determining the deficiencies, held that the apartment house was the separate property of G. M. and the other business was the separate property of T. J. He divided the income from the latter business into salary and return upon capital. He held that the salary was community income and the remainder was the separate income of T. J. He held that the sale of the apartment property affected G. M. only and computed her tax liability thereon as follows: