Patterson v. United States

459 F.2d 487, 198 Ct. Cl. 543, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1181, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 12, 1972
DocketNo. 155-68
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 487 (Patterson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Patterson v. United States, 459 F.2d 487, 198 Ct. Cl. 543, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1181, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180 (cc 1972).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Boald A. Hogenson with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under tbe order of reference and Pule 134(b). Tbe commissioner bas done so in an opinion and report filed on August 20, 1971. Defendant filed exceptions to tbe commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, plaintiffs urged tbe court to [545]*545adopt them and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties.

¡Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to recover and judgment is entered for the taxable year 1962 in the sum of $18,745.46, together with interest thereon from February 28, 1967, as provided by law, and for the taxable year 1964 in the sum of $14,962.99, together with interest thereon from April 21,1967, as provided by law.

OPINION OF COMMISSIONER

Hogenson, Commissioner: This is an action to recover alleged overpayments of federal income tax for the taxable years 1962 and 1964 in the amounts of $15,236.14 and $13,-415.77, respectively, plus assessed interest paid in the respective amounts of $3,509.32 and $1,547.22, all in the sum of $33,708.45, plus statutory interest. The suit arises as a result of defendant’s disallowance of certain farm losses for those years under section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1 For reasons appearing below, defendant’s disallowance was improper, and plaintiffs are entitled to recover.

Plaintiffs, Jefferson Patterson and Marvin B. Patterson, are husband and wife whose legal residence is Point Farm, St. Leonard, Maryland. They have a substantial annual income from extensive and varied investments in real estate, stocks and bonds. Plaintiffs filed joint income tax returns for the taxable years 1962 and 1964.

Thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service assessed deficiencies of tax against plaintiffs for 1962 and 1964, on the ground that losses which were reported from the operation of Point Farm were not allowable under section 165. Plaintiffs paid the deficiencies, together with assessed interest, as follows:

Year Tax Interest Total Date paid
1962.... $16,236.14 $3,609.32 $18,746.46 February 28, 1967-
1964.-. 13,416.77 1,647.22 14,962.99 April 21,1967.
Total. 28,661.91 6,066.64 33,708.46

[546]*546On June 23, 1967, plaintiffs filed claims for refund of the deficiencies and interest paid for 1962 and 1964, respectively, on the ground that the losses incurred in the operation of Point Farm in those years were losses incurred in a trade or business within the meaning of sections 162 and 165.

The Internal Revenue Service disallowed plaintiffs’ claim for refund for 1964 by statutory notice dated January 16, 1968; and with respect to the claim for refund for 1962, took no action thereon within 6 months after the date of its filing. Plaintiffs’ petition herein was filed on May 16, 1968.

Jefferson Patterson, hereinafter referred to individually as plaintiff, is a 1913 graduate of Yale University and a 1916 graduate of the Harvard Law School. He entered the Foreign Service in 1921, retiring therefrom in 1958 after having served the United States in many foreign countries over a long period of years. His service was climaxed by holding the office of United States Ambassador to Uruguay from 1956 to 1958.

Plaintiff first became interested in farming through his sister and brother-in-law, who had a farm on the Patuxent River in southern Maryland, and who were successful Angus cattle breeders. Following that interest, plaintiff searched for a farm in the same southern Maryland area suitable for cattle raising. In 1931, he acquired Peterson Point Farm, consisting of 311 acres and located on the Patuxent River and St. Leonard Creek in St. Leonard, Maryland. Thinking that increasing the acreage would make the operation more successful, plaintiff added to the farm with the purchase in 1942 of the adjacent King’s Reach Farm (55 acres) and, in 1950, of the adjacent Asbury Farm (110 acres). Plaintiff’s Point Farm was composed of the above-mentioned parcels of land, totaling 476 acres, during 1962 and 1964.

Point Farm first became operational in 1932. At about that time, plaintiff engaged the services of John L. King, who was a memiber of a New York farm management and consulting firm by the name of Burlingame, Barron, Rice and King. Subsequently, in 1937, Mr. King established his own farm management firm with offices in Washington, D.O. Mr. King’s reputation in Maryland as a farm consultant was good. Since January 1969, because of the illness of John L. King, plaintiff [547]*547has employed J. Mayo Brown, who was a member of the John L. King organization for a long time, as a nonresident consultant and advisor in farm management. Mr. Brown grew up on a farm. He has personally farmed, and has been engaged in professional farm management since 1958.

In addition to the services of John L. King, plaintiff in 1938 hired a resident farm manager, Stanley Houghton. Houghton remained manager under the direction and supervision of plaintiff until the former’s death in a tractor accident on the farm in 1955. After Houghton’s death, Leroy Beverly became the resident farm manager. Leroy Beverly started working for plaintiff as a farmer under Houghton in 1942. He has worked there continually except for the period 1944 to 1946, when he was in military service. Leroy Beverly was raised on a farm, and had extensive farm experience.

Plaintiff relied on his farm consultants and also on his resident farm managers in acquiring farm machinery or equipment. Plaintiff hesitated about purchasing some of the equipment, but concluded that it was necessary because of •the lack of availability of farm labor. The farm held the equipment as long as possible.

With Stanley Houghton in charge, plaintiff began the acquisition of a registered Angus breeding herd. While plaintiff’s cattle won a number of local and area prizes over the years, the breeding herd did not prove to be a moneymaker. In 1955, plaintiff became discouraged and decided to end his breeding operation. In addition to the herd’s unprofit-ability, a factor in this decision was the discovery in 1955 that a prize young bull purchased for $15,000 was virtually sterile. Another factor leading to plaintiff’s discouragement was the death in 1955 of the man in charge of the breeding operation, Stanley Houghton. The herd was sold in 1955 at a loss at auction at the Frederick County Fairgrounds.

During the period 1938 through 1955, when plaintiff was attempting to develop the Angus breeding herd, Point Farm operated at an annual net loss in every year2 except 1943, as follows:

[548]*548 Net farm profit (loss)
Tear per return
1939 _$(7,412.42)
1940_ (4,869.45)
11942 _ (3,353.75)
1943 _ 2, 305. 47
1944_ (6,729.93)

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

Related

Adkins v. United States
125 Fed. Cl. 304 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Filios v. Commissioner
1999 T.C. Memo. 92 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
Portland Golf Club v. Commissioner
497 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court, 1990)
State Department of Revenue v. Dawson
504 So. 2d 312 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1987)
Johnson v. United States
11 Cl. Ct. 17 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Cleveland Athletic Club v. United States
588 F. Supp. 1305 (N.D. Ohio, 1984)
Post Corp. v. United States
640 F.2d 1296 (Court of Claims, 1981)
Eastman v. United States
635 F.2d 833 (Court of Claims, 1980)
Fisher v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 183 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Montgomery Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. United States
615 F.2d 1318 (Court of Claims, 1980)
Hurd v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 113 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Blake Construction Co. v. United States
572 F.2d 820 (Court of Claims, 1978)
Monfore v. United States
214 Ct. Cl. 705 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Brown v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F.2d 487, 198 Ct. Cl. 543, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1181, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-united-states-cc-1972.