Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Ninth Circuit

Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

413 F.2d 1047, 24 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5273, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1969

Docket22509

StatusPublished

Cited by58 cases

This text of 413 F.2d 1047 (Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 413 F.2d 1047, 24 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5273, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayers purchased a trailer park and subsequently operated it. Stipulated portions of the purchase price represented the cost of four utility systems which had been installed for sewage disposal and for the distribution of electricity, gas, and water to those who rented space in the facility. The issue presented is whether the taxpayers are entitled to an investment credit (under sections 38, 46, and 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) for the cost of the four systems. The Tax Court held that the utility systems were not “Section 38 property” and did not qualify for the investment credit, since the taxpayers were not engaged in the trade or business of furnishing such utility services. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 48 T.C. 704 (1967); see Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 48(a) (1) (B) (i).

We affirm upon the opinion of the Tax Court. See also Mt. Mansfield Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 409 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1969) (per curiam), aff’g 50 T.C. 798 (1968).

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

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayers purchased a trailer park and subsequently operated it. Stipulated portions of the purchase price represented the cost of four utility systems which had been installed for sewage disposal and for the distribution of electricity, gas, and water to those who rented space in the facility. The issue presented is whether the taxpayers are entitled to an investment credit (under sections 38, 46, and 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) for the cost of the four systems. The Tax Court held that the utility systems were not “Section 38 property” and did not qualify for the investment credit, since the taxpayers were not engaged in the trade or business of furnishing such utility services. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 48 T.C. 704 (1967); see Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 48(a) (1) (B) (i).

We affirm upon the opinion of the Tax Court. See also Mt. Mansfield Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 409 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1969) (per curiam), aff’g 50 T.C. 798 (1968).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 F.2d 1047, 24 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5273, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-j-evans-and-margueritte-a-evans-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack