McCall v. Patterson

155 F. Supp. 405, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 765, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2946
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama
DecidedOctober 8, 1957
DocketCiv. A. No. 8552
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 F. Supp. 405 (McCall v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCall v. Patterson, 155 F. Supp. 405, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 765, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2946 (N.D. Ala. 1957).

Opinion

LYNNE, Chief Judge.

On February 15, 1954, plaintiffs sold their old residence. On October 28, 1952, they purchased their new residence. Because of necessary renovations, they did not occupy and use their new residence as their principal residence until April 15, 1953.

Defendant added to their taxable income for the year 1954 the sum of $3,-512.35 as being the taxable gain on the sale of their old residence. A deficiency assessment of tax due in the amount of $1,000.45 followed. On May 7, 1956, plaintiffs paid the amount of such assessment and filed a timely claim for re[406]*406fund thereof. That claim denied, this action ensued.

The pertinent statute1 and regulations 2 are reproduced in the margin. Plaintiffs rely upon the nonrecognition provisions of Section 1034(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, pointing to the undisputed fact that their first use of their reconstructed new residence occurred within one year before the sale of their old residence.

This case will occupy a unique position in the annals of this court, as one wherein taxpayers were denied relief, although represented both by brother and judge.

Even a casual reading of the statute involved makes it abundantly clear that there are two conditions which must be met before a taxpayer is entitled to its benefits. First, he must purchase the new residence within one year before or after the sale of his old residence; second, he must use the new residence as his principal residence within that same period.

Plaintiffs meet only the second of these conditions. Defendant was right in refusing nonrecognition treatment of their gain. To hold otherwise would be to-rewrite the statute.

Judgment will be entered for defendant.

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

Related

Peck v. Commissioner
1982 T.C. Memo. 506 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Shaw v. Commissioner
69 T.C. 1034 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F. Supp. 405, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 765, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccall-v-patterson-alnd-1957.