Estate of Shore v. Commissioner

1956 T.C. Memo. 75, 15 T.C.M. 391, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 28, 1956
DocketDocket No. 51431.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1956 T.C. Memo. 75 (Estate of Shore 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
Estate of Shore v. Commissioner, 1956 T.C. Memo. 75, 15 T.C.M. 391, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220 (tax 1956).

Opinion

Estate of William C. Shore, deceased, Helen C. Shore, Administratrix v. Commissioner.
Estate of Shore v. Commissioner
Docket No. 51431.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1956-75; 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220; 15 T.C.M. (CCH) 391; T.C.M. (RIA) 56075;
March 28, 1956
R. C. Scott, Esq., Cornelia, Ga., for the petitioner. H. Fenton Day, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.

JOHNSON

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $680.44 in the income tax of petitioner for the taxable period January 1, 1950, to October 15, 1950. The issues involved are:

(1) Whether petitioner, a cash basis cattle feeder, may properly deduct the cost of cattle in the year of purchase, or whether he must defer recovery of cost until the cattle are sold;

(2) Whether, *221 if petitioner is required to defer recovery of cost until the cattle are sold, the Commissioner is estopped from determining the instant deficiency by virtue of having accepted returns for prior years in which the cost of cattle was deducted currently; and

(3) Whether, in any event, under the circumstances of this case, petitioner may avail himself of a net operating loss carry-over from the years 1948 and 1949.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts were stipulated, and are so found. The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by this reference.

William C. Shore, sometimes hereinafter referred to as petitioner, died on October 15, 1950. An income tax return for the period January 1, 1950, to October 15, 1950, was filed on his behalf by Helen C. Shore, his widow and administratrix of his estate, with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Georgia. Prior to his death, petitioner had resided in Baldwin, Georgia, where he had been engaged in fattening beef, operating a peach orchard, and running a general mercantile business.

Petitioner's beef business consisted of purchasing steers, fattening them to prime condition, and selling them. He did not breed cattle*222 or keep dairy animals. Petitioner usually bought calves or half-grown steers, and pastured them in a field the capacity of which was approximately 50 head. The fattening period was normally in excess of 8 months, although it was occasionally less. Petitioner did not purchase cattle at any particular season of the year, nor did he sell them at any particular time; he waited until a number of steers had reached prime condition, and then sold them, usually in lots of 8. When petitioner purchased a steer, he did not tag it or segregate it. Steers were often held over from one year to the next, and when any given steer was sold, it was not possible to ascertain whether it had been purchased in the year of sale or in a prior year.

At January 1, 1950, petitioner had about 50 head of cattle on hand, he purchased 44 head during the period January 1 to October 15, and at his death there were on hand 47 steers. In the return for the taxable period in controversy, gross receipts from sales of cattle in the amount of $10,059.83 were reported, and a deduction of $4,299.21 was claimed as the cost of the 44 head of cattle purchased during that period. Respondent disallowed the deduction with the*223 explanation that the cost of cattle may only be recovered in the year sold, and that no information had been supplied as to the cost of the cattle sold between January 1 and October 15, 1950.

Petitioner computed income tax by deducting the cost of all cattle purchased during any year from the gross sales price of all cattle sold during that year.

In his individual income tax return for the year 1948 petitioner reported gross receipts from the sale of cattle in the amount of $4,927.02, he deducted $4,954.86 as cost of cattle purchased in that year, and he reported a net loss from all business operations of $4,539.91. In his 1949 individual income tax return, petitioner reported gross sales of cattle in the amount of $2,429.88, a deduction of $3,912.23, representing cost of cattle purchased in that year, and a loss from all business operations of $2,663.44. These returns were accepted by the Commissioner and those years are not now in issue before us.

The cost of the cattle sold by petitioner during the taxable period January 1 to October 15, 1950, was $3,525.

Opinion

The first question to be decided is whether petitioner, a cash basis cattle feeder, must defer recovery of*224 cost of cattle sold until the year of sale. Section 29.22(a)-7 of Regulations 111 1 requires cash basis farmers to include in gross income profits from the sale of livestock purchased (as opposed to raised), and provides that this profit is to be "ascertained by deducting the sales price in the year in which the sale occurs, * * *". We sustained the validity of this regulation in D. E. Alexander, 22 T.C. 234. In that case the facts were substantially identical to those in the instant case. There, a cash basis cattle feeder had been deducting cost of cattle in the year of purchase and was required by the Commissioner to postpone recovery of cost until the year of sale. We sustained the Commissioner. We rejected in that case the argument advanced by petitioner herein that to require a farmer to defer recovery of cost of cattle sold until the year of sale would force him to maintain a hybrid system of accounting or to report income on an inventory-accrual basis, whereas he has the option, under Regulations 111, section 29.22(c)-6, to report income on a cash receipts and disbursements basis. Therefore, on this issue, we sustain the respondent. The issue of whether petitioner*225 is entitled to a deduction for cost of cattle sold is taken up below.

*226 Petitioner urges an alternative argument, that, if he can properly be required to defer recovery of cost of cattle sold until the year of sale, nevertheless, the Commissioner is estopped from determining the deficiency herein by virtue of having accepted returns in prior years in which cost of cattle purchased was deducted currently. We disagree with petitioner.

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

Related

Niles Bement Pond Co. v. United States
281 U.S. 357 (Supreme Court, 1930)
South Chester Tube Co. v. Commissioner
14 T.C. 1229 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Alexander v. Commissioner
22 T.C. 234 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
Savage v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 633 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1956 T.C. Memo. 75, 15 T.C.M. 391, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-shore-v-commissioner-tax-1956.