Rex v. Clemens and Ethel M. Clemens v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Rex v. Clemens and Ethel M. Clemens v. United States

439 F.2d 705, 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 834, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1971

Docket23742

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 439 F.2d 705 (Rex v. Clemens and Ethel M. Clemens v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rex v. Clemens and Ethel M. Clemens v. United States, 439 F.2d 705, 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 834, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11625 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court against the taxpayer is affirmed.

Pursuant to authorization under a government contract, Clemens cut timber in 1964 and sold it. He and his wife on their joint return seek long term capital gains treatment under IRC § 631(a). The question is did Clemens hold the timber for a full six months before January 1, 1964. If one takes the bid date in June, 1963, he did hold it six months. If the formal acceptance by the Bureau of Land Management in July, 1963, is the date, he did not.

The bidding notice gave the government the right to reject bids “when it is in [its] interest to do so.”

Much as we would like to, we cannot say that Clemens had a vested interest in the timber prior to July 1, 1963.

The trouble is the government almost always has a right to retreat until it finally signs up. See Ferry v. Udall, 9 Cir., 336 F.2d 706.

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