Howey v. Commissioner

1954 T.C. Memo. 19, 13 T.C.M. 399, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 30, 1954
DocketDocket No. 39712.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1954 T.C. Memo. 19 (Howey 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
Howey v. Commissioner, 1954 T.C. Memo. 19, 13 T.C.M. 399, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220 (tax 1954).

Opinion

Mary Grace Howey v. Commissioner.
Howey v. Commissioner
Docket No. 39712.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1954-19; 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220; 13 T.C.M. (CCH) 399; T.C.M. (RIA) 54125;
April 30, 1954, Filed
Robert Ash, Esq., and Carl F. Bauersfeld, Esq., for the petitioner. Newman A. Townsend, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.

OPPER

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

OPPER, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax against petitioner as follows:

YearDeficiency
1947$14,475.79
194810,137.11
At the trial, petitioner moved for summary judgment on the pleadings as to the year 1947 upon the ground that the statute of limitations had expired. That motion was taken under advisement. Two questions are presented for our decision:

1. Did petitioner, who is on the cash basis of accounting, receive taxable income upon the receipt of certain "retain" certificates which were issued to her by a cooperative association?

*221 2. Is the 3 or 5-year statute of limitations applicable to the year 1947?

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts were stipulated and they are hereby found.

Petitioner is an individual who resides at Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida. She filed her Federal income tax returns for the years 1947 and 1948 with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Florida. She kept her books on a cash receipts and disbursements basis and reported her income for 1947 and 1948 on a cash and calendar year basis.

Petitioner has been a citrus fruit grower for many years and now owns about 585 acres of citrus groves. During 1947 and 1948 she was a grower-member of the Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, a cooperative marketing association, hereinafter sometimes called "Plymouth," which was organized in 1909 under the laws of Florida and had its principal place of business at Plymouth, Florida.

On October 12, 1935, respondent ruled that Plymouth was exempt from Federal income tax under section 101(12) of the Revenue Act of 1934. By letter dated February 4, 1946, this ruling was reaffirmed. Plymouth filed annual information returns as a tax-exempt cooperative and paid no tax with these returns.

*222 Plymouth Citrus Growers Association is a nonprofit corporation without capital stock. During 1947 and 1948, it had approximately 250 members, who owned approximately 6,000 acres of land and contributed annually about two and one-half million boxes of citrus fruit. The association made available facilities for cultivating, harvesting, processing, and marketing the fruit of its members. Its activities included spraying, fertilizing, and cultivating the members' groves and picking, grading, sizing, processing, freezing, canning and marketing the fruit produced from such groves. It operated a cannery, a packing house and a fertilizer plant. It was a member of the Florida Citrus Exchange, an organization which markets the fruit of several cooperatives.

For marketing purposes Plymouth assigned its members' fruit to pools according to the type and variety of fruit, and the members shared in the proceeds of each pool in proportion to the quantity of fruit they furnished. Plymouth's management determined whether the fruit would be processed through the cannery or sold as fresh fruit. Plymouth remitted the proceeds to its members after first deducting the estimated cost of handling, processing*223 and marketing.

Plymouth treated its fertilizer plant and grove caretaking service as a single activity. It purchased the necessary ingredients and mixed the fertilizer according to the formulae that its production manager determined a particular grower needed. The grove caretaking service included purchasing trees from the nursery, planting such trees, irrigation of the groves, application of insecticides and fertilizer, cultivation and pruning of the trees, and other operations necessary to the proper planting and care of citrus groves. Each member was billed for the cost of fertilizer and insecticides used and of the grove caretaking service. The members paid such charges either in cash or through deductions taken from the proceeds of sale of their fruit.

Petitioner purchased fertilizer through Plymouth and utilized its grove caretaking service to some extent. There was no written contract between petitioner and Plymouth in this regard. The only written contract between them was that which related to the harvesting, processing and marketing of fruit.

During the years 1947 and 1948 petitioner marketed her citrus fruit through Plymouth in accordance with a members crop agreement*224 executed June 14, 1944, which read in part as follows:

"MEMBERS CROP AGREEMENT

"THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate this 14th day of June, 1944, between Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, a corporation under the laws of Florida, with principal place of business at Plymouth, Florida, party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as ASSOCIATION, and Mrs. Mary Grace Howey of Howey, Florida, citrus grower, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as GROWER, Witnesseth:

"WHEREAS, when this agreement is properly executed by both parties GROWER becomes a member (if not already a member) of ASSOCIATION, and has all the rights and privileges granted by the charter and by-laws of ASSOCIATION to its members, and assumes his proportionate obligations and responsibilities in the affairs and operation of the ASSOCIATION; and

"WHEREAS, GROWER is in accord with ASSOCIATION'S methods of operation and desires to take advantage of the benefits of cooperative marketing, and in so doing desires to assure to ASSOCIATION the absolute right to handle, sell and market for GROWER all citrus crops produced or controlled by GROWER on property or properties hereinafter decribed;

*225

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

Related

Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co.
300 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Phillips v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 1027 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Carpenter v. Commissioner
20 T.C. 603 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1954 T.C. Memo. 19, 13 T.C.M. 399, 1954 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howey-v-commissioner-tax-1954.