Skaggs' Estate v. C. I. R.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 672 F.2d 756 |
| Parties | 82-1 USTC P 9278 ESTATE OF Ernest D. SKAGGS, Deceased, Carolyn C. Fike, Executrix, and Carolyn C. Fike, Formerly Carolyn C. Skaggs, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. 81-7058. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William N. Snell, Thomas, Snell, Jamison, Russell, Williamson & Asperger, Fresno, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.
Jay W. Miller, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued, for respondent-appellee; Gary R. Allen, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court.
Before FARRIS, FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners appeal the Tax Court's decision that absent a timely election under I.R.C. § 754, the bases of the partnership assets could not be adjusted on the death of a partner under I.R.C. § 1014(a) and (b)(6) until the partnership was terminated. The petitioners contest the Tax Court's ruling that the death of a partner does not, in and of itself, serve to terminate the partnership for tax purposes.
Ernest Skaggs, decedent, and Carolyn C. Skaggs, his widow, conducted a farming business as equal partners in a two-member partnership known as the Santa Rita Ranch Company. They owned their respective capital interests in the partnership as community property. The partnership agreement provided that the partnership would terminate upon the death of either partner. The agreement also provided that, in such a case, the estate of the deceased partner could determine whether the partnership should elect to adjust the bases of the partnership assets under section 754 of the I.R.C.
The husband died on December 31, 1973, the last day of the partnership's 1973 tax year. Community property, including their respective partnership interests, became subject to probate administration. The wife was the sole beneficiary under the husband's will and was appointed executrix of his estate. No section 754 election was filed by the partnership. Subsequent to December 31, 1973, the wife exercised full management control over the business. The debts outstanding as of December 31, 1973, were paid from subsequent crop income and collection of accounts receivable during the period between January 10, 1974 and September, 1974.
In their 1974 tax returns, the wife and the estate of her husband each reported one-half of the income and expenses derived from the farming operation in that year. In so doing, they assigned stepped-up basis, under § 1014 of the I.R.C., to the crops sold and depreciable assets used in the business to reflect the fair market value of those items on the date of decedent's death. This had the effect of reducing the federal income tax for 1974 by $110,113 for the wife and $151,858 for the estate. The Commissioner disallowed the adjustment and the Tax Court affirmed.
The Tax Court's findings of fact and inferences drawn from those facts will be upset on appeal only if clearly erroneous, the appellant having the burden of showing such clear error. Geneva Drive In Theatre, Inc. v. C. I. R., 622 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1980). Due to its special expertise, the Tax Court's determination should not be overruled unless some unmistakable question of law mandates such a decision. Sibla v. C. I. R., 611 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1980).
The petitioners argue that the partnership was terminated on December 31, 1973, the date of the husband's death. In a thorough opinion the Tax Court fully considered the petitioners' arguments. See Estate of Skaggs v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 191 (1980). Section 708 of the Code and Treasury Regulation § 1.708-1 define when a partnership is terminated for federal income tax purposes. 1 Under the regulations, a partnership does not terminate for tax purposes until the winding up of the partnership affairs have been completed. Further, the regulations indicate that the death of a partner does not necessarily terminate a partnership. Treas.Reg. § 1.708-1(b)(1)(i) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller Street Development Co. v. C. I. R.
...The Tax Court's factual findings and inferences must be affirmed unless they are clearly erroneous. Estate of Skaggs v. Commissioner, 672 F.2d 756, 757 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). In its application of law to the facts, "we consider that the tax court has exercised that degree of special ......
-
Elliotts, Inc. v. C.I.R.
...of the appropriate factors, must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Keller Street, 688 F.2d at 678; Estate of Skaggs v. Commissioner, 672 F.2d 756, 757 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 448, 74 L.Ed.2d 603 Our cases have defined a number of factors that are relevant ......
-
Atlantic Veneer Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...enough; an election must be filed under section 754. Estate of Skaggs v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 191, 206 (1980), affd. per curiam 672 F.2d 756 (9th Cir. 1982). Indeed, petitioner itself obviously considered that something more than simply reporting its share of the German partnership loss fo......
-
Mfr. Nat'l Bank of Detroit v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Higgins)
...Young v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831, 839-840 (1984); Estate of Skaggs v. Commissioner, at 205-208 »75 T.C. 191 (1980), affd. per curiam 672 F.2d 756 (9th Cir. 1982†; Valdes v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 910, 913-915 (1973).In determining whether literal compliance with an election provision is re......