Robert W. Dillon v. Commissioner
This text of 12 T.C.M. 338 (Robert W. Dillon 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.
Opinion
*320 Capital gain or ordinary income. - Petitioner constructed 20 defense houses and rented them to war workers in accordance with National Housing Agency orders. Petitioner sold the houses in 1946. Held, the houses were held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business; the gain on the sale is taxable as ordinary income.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
WITHEY, Judge: The respondent determined a deficiency of $26,801.09 in the income tax liability of the petitioner for the calendar year 1946.
The issue is whether or not a gain realized on the sale of 20 houses in the taxable year is taxable as ordinary income or as long-term capital gain. Petitioner's 1946 Federal income tax return reported the sale of 33 houses as long-term capital gains. Petitioner now agrees that the proceeds from the sale of 13 of the 33 houses are not taxable as long-term capital gains because the houses were held by him for less than six months. Our opinion relates to the remaining 20 houses.
Findings of Fact
The petitioner is an individual residing in Omaha, Nebraska. He filed his Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1946 with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Nebraska.
Petitioner has been engaged in the business of building houses for sale since 1936. During the period from 1936 to 1941, inclusive, he built and sold from 20 to 25 houses each year, and in 1942 he built and sold 12 houses in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner financed the construction of these houses with short-term*322 bank or construction loans, running for periods of from 80 to 120 days, or in some instances he contracted to construct a house and the person for whom the house was built handled the financing. During those years he did not hold any property for rental purposes. After Government regulations prevented private building in Des Moines in 1943, petitioner went to Omaha, Nebraska, and discussed the housing situation there with Federal Housing Administration officials, hereinafter referred to as F.H.A. There was an acute housing shortage in that locality because of the fact that certain defense plants, such as Martin Bomber Plant, Meade Ordnance Plant and Offutt Air Force Base, were located in that area and many defense workers had moved there. The F.H.A. officials encouraged petitioner to move his operations to Omaha and build rental housing for war workers under Title VI of the National Housing Act. Petitioner did so and at the suggestion of the F.H.A. officials organized a corporation, known as Robert W. Dillon, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the corporation, for the purpose of carrying out the construction of houses. The corporation had an authorized capital stock of $25,000. Petitioner*323 contributed the sum of $4,300 to the capital of the corporation and the shares of stock issued were owned by petitioner and his wife.
Under the F.H.A. program, it was necessary before beginning the building of houses to obtain priorities for materials from the War Production Board. In the fall of 1943 petitioner filed various applications with the War Production Board for preference rating on materials for construction of 40 defense houses, which applications were approved shortly thereafter. In all of the applications petitioner agreed to hold the houses for rent to war workers at a fixed monthly rental and not to dispose of them, except as authorized by General Orders 60-2 and 60-3 of the National Housing Agency.
National Housing Agency General Order No. 60-3 was effective February 5, 1943, and was thereafter amended from time to time. Under this order the petitioner was required to rent the houses at specified rentals to authorized war workers. The war workers could purchase the houses after a minimum of four months, later reduced to two months, on specified terms, and at any time subsequent to 60 days after completion of such housing the owner could petition the National Housing*324 Agency to permit such housing to be disposed of otherwise than as provided in subsection 3.01 of General Order No. 60-3. The amendments to these regulations provided that on or after August 1, 1943, any one constructing such houses could sell one-third of them.
The construction of the houses was financed by 25-year loans from the Western Securities Company of Omaha, Nebraska. Such loans were guaranteed up to 90 per cent of appraised value by the F.H.A. under Title VI of the National Housing Act. The loans were sufficient to cover both the cost of the lots and the cost of construction of the houses.
Title to the land on which the houses were built was held in the name of the corporation. Applications for priorities were made in the name of the corporation and it signed the mortgages and notes with one exception, wherein application was made in the name of the petitioner. On December 27, 1943, the corporation, as owner, entered into a contract with petitioner, as contractor, for the erection of the defense housing units approved by the priorities. The 20 houses in issue were completed in 1944 and 1945 and the corporation deeded the houses to petitioner. Upon completion of the houses, *325 all of them were rented to war workers on oral month-to-month tenancies under rentals approved by the F.H.A.
On October 15, 1945, all restrictions on the sale and rental of defense housing were removed by the National Housing Agency and the War Production Board. The houses could be sold to any purchaser at any price. Shortly thereafter petitioner decided to sell the 20 houses in question because he thought it was no longer economically sound to keep them. During the month of January 1946 some of the houses were advertised for sale in the Sunday edition of an Omaha newspaper.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 T.C.M. 338, 1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-w-dillon-v-commissioner-tax-1953.