Shurbet v. United States

242 F. Supp. 736, 23 Oil & Gas Rep. 475, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5518, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5338
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedFebruary 21, 1961
DocketCiv. A. No. 2701
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 242 F. Supp. 736 (Shurbet v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shurbet v. United States, 242 F. Supp. 736, 23 Oil & Gas Rep. 475, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5518, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5338 (N.D. Tex. 1961).

Opinion

DOOLEY, District Judge.

This cause came on for trial, and the Court, having heard the evidence and considered the stipulations of the parties, finds the facts and states the conclusions of law as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Procedural Facts

1.1 At all pertinent times, Plaintiffs were husband and wife residing together at Route 1, Floyd County, near Peters-burg, Texas.

1.2 This suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, being a suit to recover an alleged overpayment of federal income taxes paid by plaintiffs to defendant and now questioned as having been erroneously and illegally assessed and collected by defendant.

1.3 Plaintiffs duly filed with defendant a joint income tax return for the Calendar Year 1959 and made timely payment to the defendant of the income tax shown to be due on said return, to-wit: $2,232.05. Thereafter, on June 17, 1960, plaintiffs filed with defendant a joint amended income tax return for the Calendar Year 1959 and paid to the defendant the additional tax shown therein to be due, to-wit: $1,830.62. The total income tax paid by plaintiffs for 1959 was the resulting sum of $4,062.67. Later plaintiffs paid to defendant an interest item of $18.89 on the additional tax due by said amended return. No part of any said payments has ever been refunded or credited to plaintiffs or otherwise allowed them.

1.4 Plaintiffs filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue a timely claim for the refund of income taxes for the year 1959. Exhibit 1 attached to the complaint in this case is a true copy of the claim for refund. On the 20th of October, 1960, Defendant sent Plaintiffs by registered mail a notice that said claim was disallowed in full.

1.5 The correctness of Plaintiffs’ Federal Income Tax Return for 1959, as amended, is not in question in this case except for the issue raised by Plaintiffs’ claim for refund.

II. Capital Investment (Cost Basis)

2.1 Plaintiffs’ irrigation farm consists of 480 acres, of which 380 acres were purchased on August 8, 1946, for [737]*737$38,000.00 and 100 acres were purchased on January 23, 1953, for $28,000.00.

2.2 Plaintiffs have neither severed nor conveyed ownership of the surface or of the ground water beneath the 480-acre irrigation farm since the dates of acquisition of ownership thereof, and they are and have been the owners of the surface and of the ground water beneath the 480-acre irrigation farm since the said dates of acquisition.

2.3 Plaintiff Marvin Shurbet knew there were large quantities of water beneath the 380-acre tract and the 100-acre tract prior to the dates he purchased them in 1946 and 1953.

2.4 Since the advent of irrigation farming on the Southern High Plains1 (hereafter sometimes referred to as SHP), in 1946 and 1953, specifically, the fair market values of dry lands (that is, lands which do not have any ground water or insufficient ground water beneath their surface with which to irrigate) have always been less than the fair market value of irrigated lands.

2.5 Plaintiff Marvin Shurbet knew of the difference in market value between dry and irrigated lands when he purchased the 380 acres in 1946 and the 100 acres in 1953; he was willing to pay such difference because of the ground water under the 480 acres, which he needed for his irrigation farming business.

2.6 Of the consideration paid by Plaintiff Marvin Shurbet in 1946 and in 1953 for the 380 acres and the 100 acres, Marvin Shurbet paid and intended to pay part of such consideration for irrigation water beneath such lands.

2.7 (a) The difference in value in 1946, between the land and improvements purchased by Marvin Shurbet in 1946 and land and improvements fully comparable thereto in all other respects but which did not have irrigation water beneath its surface, was $25.00 per acre.

(b) Of the $38,000.00 paid by Marvin Shurbet for the land purchased in 1946, $9,500.00 ($25.00 per acre X 380 acres) was consideration for the acquisition of irrigation water.

(c) The difference in value in 1953, between the land and improvements purchased by Marvin Shurbet in 1953 and land and improvements fully comparable thereto in all other respects but which did not have irrigation water beneath its surface, was $120.00 per acre.

(d) Of the $28,000.00 paid by Marvin Shurbet for the land in 1953, $12,000.00 ($120.00 per acre X 100 acres) was consideration for the acquisition of irrigation water.

III. Irrigation Farming

3.1 Plaintiffs are and at all pertinent times have been engaged in the business of farming of land owned by them in Floyd County, Texas, and in connection with this farming have irrigated their land.

3.2 Plaintiff Marvin Shurbet, in the year 1959, and for many years prior thereto, was engaged in the business of irrigation farming in the Southern High Plains.

3.3 The ground water contained in The SHP groundwater reservoir and beneath Plaintiffs’ farm is fresh water suitable for human consumption, for stock watering, and for irrigation purposes.

3.4 A supply of irrigation water to a growing crop will substantially increase the yield of the crop and will result in more consistent production of good crops, provided that the irrigation water is applied during certain critical periods of time in the crop cycle.

3.5 The use of irrigation water in farming significantly improves the reliability and size of the yield of growing crops as compared to farming without the use of irrigation water, and the use of irrigation water directly causes increased income from farming.

3.6 During 1959, Marvin Shurbet derived income from the sale of crops [738]*738raised by him by irrigation farming in 1959.

3.7 During 1959, Marvin Shurbet used irrigation water in his business of irrigation farming for the purpose of producing income and such use produced income in 1959.

3.8 The irrigation water so used by Marvin Shurbet in 1959 for the production of income was ground water drawn by Marvin Shurbet from the Southern High Plains ground-water reservoir by means of irrigation wells from beneath said farm lands owned by him.

3.9 During 1959, Marvin Shurbet pumped ground water on his crops approximately as follows:

Amount of Ground water Acre-Feet Pumped Crop Acreage (inches) Minimum-Maximum

Cotton 140 15-18 175 210

Grain Sorghum 55-70 15-18 70 105

Wheat 155 11-13 143 169

Alfalfa 45-50 11-13 43 52

Corn 45-50 15-18 50 75

TOTALS 481 611

3.10 Marvin Shurbet’s farming operations in 1959 were and are typical of the farming operations of farm owners and operators engaged in the business of irrigation farming in the Southern High Plains.

3.11 Present pumping practices of farm owners and operators engaged in the business of irrigation farming in the Southern High Plains are, and for many years have been, to pump all of the ground water they can get, or all the ground water that they think they need for their crops, whichever is less.

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

Related

Day v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1417 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
United States v. Marvin Shurbet Et Ux.
347 F.2d 103 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 F. Supp. 736, 23 Oil & Gas Rep. 475, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5518, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shurbet-v-united-states-txnd-1961.