Melbourne Ranches, Inc. v. Commissioner

1971 T.C. Memo. 264, 30 T.C.M. 1132, 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 68
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 13, 1971
DocketDocket No. 5713-66.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1971 T.C. Memo. 264 (Melbourne Ranches, Inc. 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
Melbourne Ranches, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1971 T.C. Memo. 264, 30 T.C.M. 1132, 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 68 (tax 1971).

Opinion

Melbourne Ranches, Inc. v. Commissioner.
Melbourne Ranches, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 5713-66.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1971-264; 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 68; 30 T.C.M. (CCH) 1132; T.C.M. (RIA) 71264;
October 13, 1971, Filed.
Lola S. Lea and Marvin W. Weinstein, for the petitioner. Marion L. Westen, for the respondent. 1133

RAUM

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined deficiencies of $83,063.67 and $124,823.25 in petitioner's income tax for the taxable years ending March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1963, respectively. The only issue for decision is whether petitioner must be charged with all or merely one-half of the gain realized on the sale of a "Lease and Option Agreement" on September 8, 1961; petitioner contends that there was a joint venture between it and an individual (George Farkas) in respect of the subject matter of that sale and that it was therefore accountable for only one-half the gain in accordance with the alleged joint venture.

Findings of Fact

The parties have stipulated certain facts*69 which are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioner, Melbourne Ranches, Inc. ("Melbourne"), is a Florida corporation. It filed Federal corporate income tax returns for the taxable years ending March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1963, with the district director of internal revenue at Jacksonville, Florida. At the time the petition herein was filed, Melbourne's legal address and principal place of business was 1010 First National Bank Building, Miami, Florida.

Melbourne was organized under the laws of the State of Florida, and its Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State in Tallahassee on May 20, 1955, with an authorized capital of 10,000 shares of $10 par value common stock. Its stock was initially issued to the following persons in the following amounts:

PercentageRelationship of
Name ofNumber ofof StockShareholder to
ShareholderSharesOwnershipGeorge Farkas
Alexander S. Farkas30015.0%Son
Robin L. Farkas30015.0%Son
Bruce R. Farkas30015.0%Son
Jonathan D. Farkas30015.0%Son
Arthur W. Schwadron1708.5%Nephew
Jack Schwadron1708.5%Nephew
Ruth Lewis Farkas1206.0%Wife
Rubin D. Lewis1005.0%Brother-in-law
Jack Hartley804.0%Nephew
Kate Spaget804.0%Sister
Alice Sherwin402.0%Niece
Marion Tenner402.0%Niece
*70 As indicated by the table above, all of the stockholders were related by blood or by marriage to George Farkas ("Farkas").

Farkas was the founder of Alexander's Department Stores, Inc. ("Alexander's"), a New York based chain of retail department stores which he began in 1928 with funds contributed by himself, his sisters, and his brothers-in-law. Until 1968, when stock of Alexander's was sold to the public, the enterprise was owned almost entirely by Farkas and his relatives; and until his retirement in 1968, Farkas devoted himself to Alexander's largely on a full-time basis.

Beginning in about 1937, Farkas began to acquire interests in real estate in Florida on behalf of himself, his wife, and other family members. Although there were variations, Farkas generally retained a 51 percent interest in each real estate venture; his wife generally held an eight percent interest; one sister (Mrs. Schwadron) held approximately a 22 percent interest; and his three other sisters each held 6 percent interests. These percentage interests were substantially identical to the family members' interests in Alexander's. Farkas was the sole family member who actively participated in the selection*71 of and negotiation for the Florida properties. He was assisted in making such investments by J.P. Simmons ("Simmons"), a Florida attorney.

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

Related

Commissioner v. Culbertson
337 U.S. 733 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Fishback v. United States
215 F. Supp. 621 (D. South Dakota, 1963)
Dreymann v. Comm'r
11 T.C. 153 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Cohen v. Commissioner
15 T.C. 261 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Beck Chemical Equipment Corp. v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 840 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
S. & M. Plumbing Co. v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 702 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Baughn v. Commissioner
1969 T.C. Memo. 282 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1971 T.C. Memo. 264, 30 T.C.M. 1132, 1971 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melbourne-ranches-inc-v-commissioner-tax-1971.