United States v. O'Neill (Three Cases). United States v. Avery

211 F.2d 701, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1336, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3710
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 7, 1954
Docket13620_1
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 701 (United States v. O'Neill (Three Cases). United States v. Avery) 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
United States v. O'Neill (Three Cases). United States v. Avery, 211 F.2d 701, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1336, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3710 (9th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees are beneficiaries of a testamentary trust which, prior to and in the year 1946, was engaged in the business of raising beef cattle for market. In 1944 323 head of 2-year-old heifers were sold and profits realized therefrom reported as a capital gain under the provisions of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue made a “redetermination of the amount of income taxes due and treated the income from the sale of the heifers as ordinary income. Appel-lees paid the additional amount assessed and being denied a refund instituted suit to recover.

The only issue for trial before the trial court was whether profit from the sale of heifers by the trust during 1944 was ordinary income or capital gain within the provisions of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code. This section permits a taxpayer to treat income from the sale of livestock held for breeding purposes for a period of six months (later amended to twelve) as a capital gain.

The trial court found as a fact that the 323 heifers sold during 1944 were held for breeding purposes within the meaning of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code and had been held by the trust for more than six months.

It is conceded by the Government that whether an animal is held for breeding purposes and not primarily for sale presents a question of fact, but it contends that this finding is clearly erroneous in that it is not supported by substantial evidence. This contention is without merit. The finding is not clearly erroneous; is supported by substantial evidence and is controlling on this court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Gamble v. Commissioner
68 T.C. 800 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Cole v. United States
138 F. Supp. 186 (E.D. Illinois, 1955)
Biltmore Co. v. United States
129 F. Supp. 366 (W.D. North Carolina, 1955)
Erickson v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 458 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
McDonald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
214 F.2d 341 (Second Circuit, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 F.2d 701, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1336, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oneill-three-cases-united-states-v-avery-ca9-1954.