MEMORANDUM OPINION
HAMBLEN, Judge:* Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,518 in petitioners' 1976 Federal income tax. The sole issue for decision is whether capital was a material income-producing factor in petitioners' retail grocery business within the meaning of section 1348. 1
All of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioners, Casey W. Jones and Margie K. Jones, husband and wife, resided in Gretna, Louisiana, when they filed their 1976 joint income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service Center, Austin, Texas, and when they filed their petition in this case.
On March 15, 1964, petitioners began operating a supermarket under the name Casey Jones Supermarket (hereinafter CJS) in Stumpf's Westside Shopping Center, Gretna, Louisiana. From that date through July 31, 1976, CJS was wholly owned by petitioners and operated by them as an unincorporated business. On August 1, 1976, all of the assets of CJS were transferred to Casey Jones Supermarket, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and all of the corporation's stock was issued to petitioners and their son, Kirk Jones.
CJS conducted its supermarket business in a leased building of approximately 22,000 square feet. CJS also leased two warehouses, one of which it subleased to a third party for $10,155.88 during 1976. From January 1, 1976, through July 31, 1976, the total rent paid by CJS for the three buildings was $43,285.43.
Casey Jones controlled and managed the business operations of CJS. He normally worked a minimum of five days a week, averaging 48 hours a week, but would work more if necessary. Margie Jones did bookkeeping and accounting work for CJS. She worked a minimum of four days a week, averaging 20 hours a week, but she also would work more if necessary. Kirk Jones, the petitioners' son, was employed by CJS as the store manager. CJS also employed an assistant store manager, a produce manager, a meat department manager, and a dairy department manager. During the period in issue, CJS had approximately 35 full-time employees and five part-time employees.
From January 1, 1976, through July 31, 1976, CJS purchased depreciable equipment used in the operation of its supermarket business at a cost of $17,391.29. The total cost of all the depreciable property owned by CJS as of July 31, 1976, was $196,051.85, which the accumulated depreciation thereon equalled $92,259.53.
For the period from January 1, 1976, through July 31, 1976, petitioners reported on their 1976 tax return the following net profit and cost of goods sold from the operation of CJS:
| Net Profit |
|
| Gross receipts 2 | $3,071,856.41 |
| Cost of goods sold | 2,601,667.84 |
|
| Gross profit | $ 470,188.57 |
| Other income 3 | 35,293.46 |
|
| Total income | $ 505,482.03 |
| Total deductions | 404,114.09 |
|
| Net profit | $ 101,367.94 |
|
| Cost of Goods Sold |
|
| Beginning inventory | $ 74,638.54 |
| Purchases (less spoilage allowance) | 2,732,382.53 |
|
| Total | $2,807,021.07 |
| Less ending inventory | 205,353.23 |
|
| Cost of goods sold | $2,601,667.84 |
On their 1976 return, petitioners computed their income tax pursuant to the maximum tax provisions of section 1348. They reported earned income of $90,677.31, consisting of the following items:
| Item | Amount |
| CJS net profit | $101,367.94 |
| Director's fees | 455.00 |
| Farm loss | (11,145.63) |
| $ 90,677.31 |
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners were not entitled to compute their income tax under section 1348 because capital was a material income-producing factor in petitioners' supermarket business. 4
Section 1348 5 limits the maximum marginal tax rate on earned taxable income to 50 percent. Earned income is defined for purposes of section 1348 as "earned income within the meaning of section 401(c)(2)(C) or section 911(b)." 6 The relevant provision 7 in the instant case is section 911(b), which provides:
(b) Definition of Earned Income.--For purposes of this section the term "earned income" means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered. In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income-producing factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30 percent of his share of the net profits of such trade or business, shall be considered as earned income. [Emphasis added.]
Respondent maintains that capital was a material income-producing factor in petitioners' supermarket business and, therefore, only 30 percent of the net profit therefrom constitutes earned income for purposes of section 1348.Petitioners, on the other hand, insist that the 30-percent limitation 8 is inapplicable because their personal services was the material income-producing factor in their supermarket business. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with and hold for respondent.
Whether capital is a material income-producing factor is determined from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Bruno v. Commissioner,71 T.C. 191, 197 (1978); Rousku v. Commissioner,56 T.C. 548, 550 (1971). Capital is considered a material income-producing factor if a substantial portion of the gross income of the business is attributable to the employment of capital in the business. Moore v. Commissioner,71 T.C. 533, 538 (1979); Bruno v. Commissioner,supra at 199.On the other hand, capital is not a material income-producing factor if the gross income of the business consists principally of fees, commissions, or other compensation for personal services. Moore v. Commissioner,supra at 538; Bruno v. Commissioner,supra at 199. Section 1.1348-3(a)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., sets forth the test for determining whether capital is a material income-producing factor:
(ii) Whether capital is a material income-producing factor must be determined by reference to all the facts of each case. Capital is a material income-producing factor if a substantial portion of the gross income of the business is attributable to the employment of capital in the business, as reflected, for example, by a substantial investment in inventories, plant, machinery, or other equipment. In general, capital is not a material income-producing factor where gross income of the business consists principally of fees, commissions, or other compensation for personal services performed by an individual. Thus, the practice of his profession by a doctor, dentist, lawyer, architect, or accountant will not, as such, be treated as a trade or business in which capital is a material income-producing factor even though the practitioner may have a substantial capital investment in professional equipment or in the physical plant constituting the office from which he conducts his practice since his capital investment is regarded as only incidental to his professional practice. [Emphasis added.]
We believe that our decision in Moore v. Commissioner,supra, the facts of which are virtually indistinguishable from those of the instant case, is dispositive of the issue presented herein.In Moore, the Court determined that capital employed in the form of inventory, depreciable assets, and leased property was a material income-producing factor in the taxpayers' retail grocery business. The Court found that the capital employed as inventory was of primary importance to their business. Indeed, the Court concluded that under section 1.1348-3(a)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., "all retail grocery businesses employ capital as a material income-producing factor." Moore v. Commissioner,supra at 540.
In the instant case, petitioners also employed substantial capital in the form of inventory, depreciable assets, and leased property. While petitioners' personal services may have been a material income-producing factor in their business, such services are inseparable from the inventory they sold; the income from their business was attributable to the price paid for the inventory and not to any compensation paid for personal services. See Moore v. Commissioner,supra at 539. Furthermore, the definition of earned income set forth in section 911(b) provides that a maximum of 30 percent of the net profits of a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income-producing may be considered earned income. Clearly, under Moore, capital was a material income-producing factor in petitioners' supermarket business, and, accordingly, respondent's determination must be sustained.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for the respondent.