Roe v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 100, 24 T.C.M. 528, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 230
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 15, 1965
DocketDocket No. 92511.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1965 T.C. Memo. 100 (Roe 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
Roe v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 100, 24 T.C.M. 528, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 230 (tax 1965).

Opinion

Harold Roe and Charlotte Roe v. Commissioner.
Roe v. Commissioner
Docket No. 92511.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-100; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 230; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 528; T.C.M. (RIA) 65100;
April 15, 1965
Dale Forbes and Melvyn M. Ryan, for the petitioners. H. Kent Holman, for the respondent.

FAY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FAY, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax, as follows:

Taxable YearAmount
1956$2,093.79
19571,832.60
19582,551.61
By an Amendment to Answer, the Commissioner determined that there were increased deficiencies, as follows:
Taxable YearAmount
1956$3,339.06
19572,111.53
19586,210.24

At the conclusion of the oral testimony at the trial, the Commissioner requested and was granted permission to amend his pleadings to conform to the proof. By an Amendment to Answer as Amended, the Commissioner determined that there were additional increased deficiencies, 1 as follows:

Taxable YearAmount
1956$2,325.42
1957785.47
19581,314.52
The Commissioner's claim for the increased deficiencies, as*232 well as his claim for the additional increased deficiencies, is made pursuant to section 6214(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 2

The issues for decision are (1) whether distributions received by petitioners during the years in issue with respect to instruments issued by certain cemetery corporations and designated "Certificates of Indebtedness" constitute distributions received upon the exchange for the partial redemption or retirement of said certificates thereby rendering the gains taxable at capital gains rates pursuant to section 1232, or constitute dividend income taxable as ordinary income and (2) whether amounts received by petitioners from certain cemetery corporations during the years in issue resulting from a transaction which took place in 1954 constitute ordinary income, long-term capital gain, or nontaxable receipts.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, *233 is incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioners Harold Roe (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Roe) and Charlotte Roe (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Charlotte) are husband and wife residing in Helena, Montana. They filed their joint income tax returns for the years in issue with the district director of internal revenue, Helena, Montana.

Roe, as of the time of trial, had been in the cemetery business for approximately 16 years. Prior to 1953, he was employed by various cemetery corporations as sales manager. In 1953, after having been associated with cemetery corporations in the States of Illinois, Iowa, and North Dakota, he came to Montana and proceeded to organize the following cemetery corporations:

Sunset
MemorialDate ofPlace of
Gardens ofIncorporationBusiness
GlendiveNov. 27, 1954Glendive, Mont.
Great FallsFeb. 10, 1953Great Falls, Mont.
BozemanJuly 27, 1955Bozeman, Mont.
ButteJan. 15, 1954Butte, Mont.
Miles CityJune 6, 1953Miles City, Mont.
HelenaJan. 14, 1954Helena, Mont.
MissoulaFeb. 27, 1953Missoula, Mont.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 T.C. Memo. 100, 24 T.C.M. 528, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roe-v-commissioner-tax-1965.