Valmore H. Monette and Nannie B. Monette v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fourth Circuit

Valmore H. Monette and Nannie B. Monette v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

374 F.2d 116, 19 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 928, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1967

Docket10839

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 116 (Valmore H. Monette and Nannie B. Monette v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valmore H. Monette and Nannie B. Monette v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 374 F.2d 116, 19 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 928, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7234 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The individual taxpayers and a number of controlled corporations prevailed in the Tax Court on a number of issues, but the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s disallowance of farm losses as deductions on the income tax return of the individual taxpayer and his wife. 1

Here, in spite of consistent and very substantial losses of the farm and the relatively small gross receipts it produced, it is contended that the farm was a business venture and not a hobby. Additionally, it is contended that the expense of operation of the farm was an ordinary expense incident to Monette’s individual business as a manufacturers’ agent, despite the fact that all the gross receipts from that business were allocated by him among his numerous corporations.

Whether or not the farm was a business or a hobby is essentially a question of fact. Some of the subordinate facts point in one direction, while others point in the opposite. We think the Tax Court’s ultimate finding of fact is not clearly erroneous, for the reasons stated by it. We accept it, while rejecting the alternative theory that the operation of the farm is deductible by Monette on his individual return as an ordinary business expense of the manufacturers’ agent’s business, none of the gross receipts of which were received by him.

Affirmed.

1

. V. H. Monette & Company, Incorporated et al. v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 15.

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

PER CURIAM:

The individual taxpayers and a number of controlled corporations prevailed in the Tax Court on a number of issues, but the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s disallowance of farm losses as deductions on the income tax return of the individual taxpayer and his wife. 1

Here, in spite of consistent and very substantial losses of the farm and the relatively small gross receipts it produced, it is contended that the farm was a business venture and not a hobby. Additionally, it is contended that the expense of operation of the farm was an ordinary expense incident to Monette’s individual business as a manufacturers’ agent, despite the fact that all the gross receipts from that business were allocated by him among his numerous corporations.

Whether or not the farm was a business or a hobby is essentially a question of fact. Some of the subordinate facts point in one direction, while others point in the opposite. We think the Tax Court’s ultimate finding of fact is not clearly erroneous, for the reasons stated by it. We accept it, while rejecting the alternative theory that the operation of the farm is deductible by Monette on his individual return as an ordinary business expense of the manufacturers’ agent’s business, none of the gross receipts of which were received by him.

Affirmed.

1

. V. H. Monette & Company, Incorporated et al. v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 15.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 F.2d 116, 19 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 928, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valmore-h-monette-and-nannie-b-monette-v-commissioner-of-internal-ca4-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack