Prickett v. Commissioner

1967 T.C. Memo. 2, 26 T.C.M. 5, 1967 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1967
DocketDocket No. 1416-65.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1967 T.C. Memo. 2 (Prickett 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
Prickett v. Commissioner, 1967 T.C. Memo. 2, 26 T.C.M. 5, 1967 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259 (tax 1967).

Opinion

Ralph S. Prickett and Anna Jane Prickett v. Commissioner.
Prickett v. Commissioner
Docket No. 1416-65.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1967-2; 1967 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259; 26 T.C.M. (CCH) 5; T.C.M. (RIA) 67002;
January 5, 1967

*259 Held: Petitioners were engaged in the business of cattle ranching and are entitled to deduct losses sustained in the operation of their ranch as trade or business expenses under section 162 of the I.R.C. of 1954. [The taxpayers were entitled to an investment credit for depreciable property acquired for the ranch.]

Clarence J. Ferrari, Jr., 300 W. Hedding St., San Jose, Calif., and James E. Jackson, for the petitioners. Sheldon M. Sission, for*260 the respondent.

BRUCE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

BRUCE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in the income taxes of petitioners for the years 1961, 1962 and 1963 in the amounts of $1,118.04, $1,517.24 and $2,427.21, respectively. The primary issue is whether petitioners are entitled to deduct losses incurred in the operation of a cattle ranch under either section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 relating to trade or business deductions, or section 212 relating to expenses for the production of income. The parties agree that the resolution of this issue will decide the secondary issue of whether petitioners are entitled to an investment credit under section 38 for certain depreciable property acquired for the ranch in 1963. A minor adjustment for the year 1962 was conceded by petitioners.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioners are husband and wife who reside at*261 Sunnyvale, California. They filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year 1961 with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles, California, and their joint returns for 1962 and 1963 with the district director of internal revenue at San Francisco, California.

Petitioner Ralph S. Prickett (hereinafter referred to as Ralph) is an engineer. He graduated from the University of Indiana with a major in physics and a minor in mathematics and chemistry. After three years in the Army, he worked for Sandia Corporation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as a test engineer at a salary of around $7,000 per year. From 1951 to 1959 he was employed at the Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, California, as a project engineer and research scientist for an annual salary of about $10,000. Thereafter he worked for General Electric in Santa Barbara, California, for approximately four years as a senior staff engineer. For the past three years, Ralph has been employed as an advance systems engineer by Lockheed Corporation in Sunnyvale, California, for a salary of $18,200. At both General Electric and Lockheed his hours were from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.

Petitioner became interested*262 in cattle raising at an early age. While a Boy Scout in Bloomington, Indiana, his boyhood home, Ralph earned every merit badge in animal husbandry and farming. He became specifically interested in acquiring and operating a cattle ranch toward the latter part of his tour of duty in the Army. While working in New Mexico, he and his wife, petitioner Anna Jane Prickett (hereinafter referred to as Anna), on weekends looked for a ranch to purchase. After moving to California they continued to search for a ranch to buy approximately once a month on weekend trips and vacation hunting trips. From the time he became interested in acquiring a ranch, Ralph collected books and studied data concerning the cattle ranching business and talked to ranchers about the business when Anna and he were on trips looking for a ranch to buy.

In 1957 petitioners purchased a ranch consisting of approximately 1,300 acres near Fort Jones in the northern part of California about 400 miles from Sunnyvale. They had previously studied the suitability of that area of California for cattle ranching. The purchase price of the ranch was $21,000 with a $7,000 down payment. Petitioners raised the money for the down payment*263 by selling all but a few shares of certain common stock which Anna had inherited. Petitioners renamed the ranch the Highland Ranch.

The ranch had improvements consisting of a small house, a barn, a shop, a guest house, a garage, a chickenhouse, water wells and fencing. Subsequent to purchasing the ranch petitioners tore down two outbuildings which were in poor repair and made repairs on other of the buildings, including putting a new roof on the barn. They bought equipment for the ranch, including a Grassland seed drill, a tractor and a reconditioned bulldozer and planted 65 acres of alfalfa, in addition to 60 acres already planted, in line with a conservation report obtained from the Siskiyou County Soil Conservation District authorities.

In 1958 petitioners bought one bull, two cows and two heifers of a breed of cattle known as Santa Gertrudis. It was petitioners' intention to develop a herd of purebred cattle to sell for breeding purposes, but because of poor calf crops in certain years it was necessary to sell some cattle for commercial consumption. All bull calves were sold for purebred breeding purposes. In 1961 and 1962 petitioners had 11 and 13 head of cattle, including*264 one bull. At the time of the trial, petitioners owned approximately 16 head of cattle. During the three years in issue petitioners lost 3 cows and approximately 15 calves due primarily to disease, such as bloat and scours, or other causes.

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

Related

Babbitt v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 850 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Sabelis v. Commissioner
37 T.C. 1058 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1967 T.C. Memo. 2, 26 T.C.M. 5, 1967 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prickett-v-commissioner-tax-1967.