Levno v. United States

440 F. Supp. 8, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6015, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14483
CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedAugust 15, 1977
DocketCV-75-123-BLG
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 440 F. Supp. 8 (Levno v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Levno v. United States, 440 F. Supp. 8, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6015, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14483 (D. Mont. 1977).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

BATTIN, District Judge.

The above-entitled action was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury, on *9 May 9, 1977. Upon the conclusion of testimony and the submission of evidence, the Court took the issues and facts, as presented, under advisement and ordered counsel to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Each of the parties has filed proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with supporting legal briefs. After consideration of all of the materials before the Court, I find:

I.

This civil action was instituted as a result of a proceeding on behalf of the United States of America to enforce a provision of the Internal Revenue Code.

II.

The plaintiffs named above are cash-basis, individual, taxpaying citizens of the United States. The tax liability subject to question in this case involves the years of 1971, 1972, and 1973.

III.

During every year in issue, the respective plaintiffs were each engaged in the raising of livestock in Montana.

IV.

In each of the years in issue, each plaintiff entered a separate agreement with S & H Sheep Company, a Montana corporation, and a livestock dealer, for the sale of cattle at a price to be determined at auction through the Sidney Livestock Market Center, a Montana corporation. Each of the contracts entered into by the respective plaintiffs with S & H Sheep was memorialized on a preprinted form.

V.

The effect of each contract was to defer to the following tax year taxable income from the sale of livestock made the subject of the contract to sell.

VI.

The chronology of events leading to the signing of the written agreements entered into by the respective parties followed the same general pattern.

VII.

Each plaintiff desiring to sell his cattle made an arrangement with the S & H Sheep Company to sell his cattle to that licensed broker.

VIII.

In each of the years in question, S & H Sheep Company was fully owned by the same three shareholders who were the sole shareholders of the Sidney Livestock Market Center.

IX.

S & H Sheep Company had no separate business offices or employees.

X.

A check-in slip was prepared and executed when the livestock were transferred to the Sidney Livestock exchange.

XI.

A State of Montana Brand Inspection Report and Tally was prepared by an employee of the State of Montana working in Sidney, inspecting the brand of all cattle sold at Sidney Livestock Market Center.

XII.

A bill of sale was prepared and executed at the Livestock Center brand inspection station and forwarded by the Brand Inspector to the Brand Enforcement Division of the State of Montana.

XIII.

When the livestock were auctioned and sold, the net proceeds were determined by deducting all the various fees, expenses and charges from the auction price.

XIV.

The fact that the livestock were sold by S & H Sheep Company and not the taxpayer did not result in any difference in any of the underlying fees and charges for the sale at the Sidney Livestock Market Center, nor did it affect the manner and method of auctioning the livestock.

XV.

Any trucking charges incurred in the transportation of the cattle to the Sidney Livestock Market were costs deducted from the gross sale price received for the cattle.

*10 XVI.

On the date of sale, or within one day thereafter, the Sidney Livestock Market executed checks payable to S & H Sheep Company in the amount of the net proceeds.

XVII.

Ownership of the cattle passed to the S & H Sheep Company prior to the sale at auction.

XVIII.

The farmer-ranchers involved in the contracts in question retained no power to stop the sale of their cattle or to receive their money, except as provided in the agreement with S & H Sheep Company.

XIX.

The contracts involved in these deferred payments were written.

XX.

The contracts were executed at arm’s length.

XXI.

Each of the plaintiff-taxpayers retained no unqualified right to receive payment in the years in which the contract was executed and the cattle delivered for sale.

XXII.

The intent of the parties when deferred payment was agreed upon by contract was to provide average income in any given year.

XXIII.

Each of the plaintiff-taxpayers filed a penalty claim for refund of taxes assessed by the Internal Revenue Service when audited and when the deferred contracts were disallowed.

XXIV.

The amounts claimed by each taxpayer are not in dispute.

XXV.

In each instance of the deferred-payment contract, the particular taxpayer received payment for the sale of his cattle in the calendar year subsequent to the year in which the sale was made, and pursuant to the terms of the deferred payment contracts.

XXVI.

The S & H Sheep Company was not an agent for any of the respective plaintiffs for purposes of the contracts which are the subject of this action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Jurisdiction exists in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1340.

Venue in this Division is appropriate by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(1).

The agreements entered into between the plaintiff-taxpayers and S & H Sheep Company were valid and binding contracts, completed at arm’s length.

The parties are entitled to the benefits or obligations provided under the respective contracts. A cash-basis taxpayer is properly subject to tax upon income only when he “receives” an item of income.

The income in question in these cases was not constructively received by the taxpayers.

The proceeds received from the sale of the cattle and held by the S & H Sheep Company were subject to substantial qualifications and restrictions.

The income from each particular sale was properly deferrable and should have been treated as income in the year of actual receipt by the taxpayer and not the year of sale.

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

Related

Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
E.D. California, 2023
Fontneau v. United States
517 F. Supp. 677 (D. New Hampshire, 1981)
Timms v. United States
502 F. Supp. 541 (D. Arizona, 1980)
John G. Holcomb and Ruth E. Holcomb v. United States
622 F.2d 937 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Estate of Smith v. Commissioner
73 T.C. 307 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Johnson v. Commissioner
468 F. Supp. 461 (M.D. Florida, 1979)
Bryan M. Patzkowski v. United States
576 F.2d 134 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Engel v. United States
448 F. Supp. 201 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Griffin v. Collins
443 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D. Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
440 F. Supp. 8, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6015, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levno-v-united-states-mtd-1977.