Longino v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Longino) , Docket Nos. 70617
| Court | United States Tax Court |
| Writing for the Court | MULRONEY |
| Citation | 32 T.C. 904 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF J. T. LONGINO, DECEASED, ROBERT HARVEY LONGINO AND JOHN THOMAS LONGINO, JR., FORMER EXECUTORS, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.R. H. LONGINO, MARGARET W. LONGINO (HUSBAND AND WIFE), PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | 70618.,Docket Nos. 70617 |
32 T.C. 904
ESTATE OF J. T. LONGINO, DECEASED, ROBERT HARVEY LONGINO AND JOHN THOMAS LONGINO, JR., FORMER EXECUTORS, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.R. H. LONGINO, MARGARET W. LONGINO (HUSBAND AND WIFE), PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Docket Nos. 70617
70618.
Tax Court of the United States.
Filed July 17, 1959.
[32 T.C. 904]
J. L. Roberson, Esq., for the petitioners.
George L. Hudspeth, Esq., for the respondent.
Held, amount realized in settlement of a claim for damages to a cotton crop caused by the use of an insecticide was taxable as ordinary income and the fact the settlement instrument was in form an assignment of the claim was immaterial.
MULRONEY, Judge:The respondent determined deficiencies in the income tax of petitioners for the year 1952 in these consolidated proceedings in the following amounts:
+-------------------------+
¦Docket No. ¦Deficiency ¦
+------------+------------¦
¦70617 ¦$1,096.03 ¦
+------------+------------¦
¦70618 ¦2,063.52 ¦
+-------------------------+
The one issue to be decided is whether $18,740.54, received from the settlement of a claim for damages to cotton crops, is to be considered ordinary income or as long-term capital gain.
Some of the facts are stipulated and they are found accordingly. R. H. Longino and Margaret W. Longino are husband and wife. During the years 1951 and 1952 they were partners with J. T. Longino (R. H. Longino's father) in the operation of a cotton plantation near Lula, Mississippi.
In connection with the production of the cotton crop for 1951 the partnership purchased and used an insecticide called UNICO 25% DD7 Emulsion Concentrate. This was a product of United Cooperatives, Inc. of Alliance, Ohio, hereinafter called United, which did not sell directly to farmers but distributed its products through local agencies, sales companies, farmers' cooperatives, and brokerage companies. As a result of the usage of the insecticide considerable damage was done to the cotton crop being grown on the plantation in 1951. Subsequently, R. H. Longino, the managing partner, made claim for the partnership against United and others for damages caused to the said cotton crop by the use of the insecticide. The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Maryland, was the insurance carrier for United, having issued it a products liability policy.
After considerable negotiations between all parties concerned the claim for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turzillo v. CIR, No. 15764.
...money paid. See: Goldsmith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 22 T.C. 1137, 1144; Estate of Longino v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 904, 906. As a practical matter any claim for future services under the contract of employment was of little, if any, value. There was a duty up......
-
Martin v. U.S., No. 97-31277
...having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes). 22 Susan relies on Estate of Longino v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 904, 1959 WL 1054 (1959) for the proposition that the origin of the claim doctrine can also be used to determine the taxability of proceeds rece......
-
Fowler Hosiery Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 78850.
...The taxability of a payment for damages sustained is governed by the nature of the claim which is settled. Cf. Estate of J. T. Longino, 32 T.C. 904 (1959). In the instant case, the basis of petitioner's claim for damages from Coile is not established but it is reasonable to assume from the ......
-
CIR v. Murdoch, No. 14222
...8 L.Ed.2d 404 (1962); 318 F.2d 417 Fowler Hosiery Co., 36 T.C. 201, 223-224 (1961) aff'd 301 F.2d 394 (7 Cir. 1962); Estate of Longino, 32 T.C. 904 (1959); Goldsmith, 22 T.C. 1137, 1144-1145 (1954); Peter K. Pappas, T.C. Memo. 1962-203, 7 C.C.H. 1962, Stand. Fed.Tax Rep. ¶ 7628(M). The taxp......
-
Turzillo v. CIR, No. 15764.
...money paid. See: Goldsmith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 22 T.C. 1137, 1144; Estate of Longino v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 904, 906. As a practical matter any claim for future services under the contract of employment was of little, if any, value. There was a duty up......
-
Martin v. U.S., No. 97-31277
...having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes). 22 Susan relies on Estate of Longino v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 904, 1959 WL 1054 (1959) for the proposition that the origin of the claim doctrine can also be used to determine the taxability of proceeds rece......
-
Fowler Hosiery Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 78850.
...The taxability of a payment for damages sustained is governed by the nature of the claim which is settled. Cf. Estate of J. T. Longino, 32 T.C. 904 (1959). In the instant case, the basis of petitioner's claim for damages from Coile is not established but it is reasonable to assume from the ......
-
CIR v. Murdoch, No. 14222
...8 L.Ed.2d 404 (1962); 318 F.2d 417 Fowler Hosiery Co., 36 T.C. 201, 223-224 (1961) aff'd 301 F.2d 394 (7 Cir. 1962); Estate of Longino, 32 T.C. 904 (1959); Goldsmith, 22 T.C. 1137, 1144-1145 (1954); Peter K. Pappas, T.C. Memo. 1962-203, 7 C.C.H. 1962, Stand. Fed.Tax Rep. ¶ 7628(M). The taxp......