Riedel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17139.
| Citation | 261 F.2d 371 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 17139.,17139. |
| Parties | Alfred J. RIEDEL and Louise Riedel, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Eugene J. Pitman, Houston, Tex., De Lange, Hudspeth & Pitman, Houston, Tex., for petitioners.
John J. Pajak, A. F. Prescott, Joseph F. Geotten, Lee A. Jackson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Morawski, Special Atty., IRS, Arch M. Cantrall, Chief Counsel, IRS, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
This petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court presents the much litigated question whether the sale of land by taxpayers was a sale of a capital asset or of property primarily held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business.
The admitted facts more nearly come within the pattern of Smith v. Dunn, 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 353, decided for the taxpayer, than within the framework of any case deciding differently. As stated by this Court in Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 217, 219, "insofar * * * as the so-called `ultimate fact' is simply the result reached by processes of legal reasoning from, or the interpretation of the legal significance of, the evidentiary facts, it is `subject to review free of the restraining import of the so-called clearly erroneous rule,' Lehmann v. Acheson, 3 Cir., 206 F.2d 592, 594." The legal conclusion reached then by the Tax Court in this case on what is, on all essential matters, undisputed evidence, is subject to review as we held the Tax Court decision was in Goldberg v. C. I. R., 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 709.
We conclude that the testimony and stipulation before the Tax Court could not give rise to the legal inference that this elderly couple, in disposing of this 34 acres inherited some thirty years previously, even though they sold it in 27 different lots after subdividing it, were at any time engaged in the ordinary course of business of selling lots. The sales were simply a disposition by them of this capital asset in the only way in which a satisfactory price could be obtained. The taxpayers did not enter and carry on a business "in the manner in which such a business is ordinarily conducted." Cf. Home Co., Inc., v. C. I. R., 10 Cir., 212 F.2d 637, 641, cited in Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, supra.
The judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and the case remanded for entry of judgment in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2018-53
...section 1237 applies. See Bauschard v. Commissioner, 279 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1960), aff'g 31 T.C. 910 (1959); Riedel v. Commissioner, 261 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1958), rev'g T.C. Memo. 1957-210.22Page 50 SRI treated its acquisition of Orland Park as a purchase costing $7 million, and as a result......
-
Highland Hills Swimming Club, Inc. v. Wiseman
...court could draw its own inference free from the restraining import of the so-called clearly erroneous rule (See Riedel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 261 F.2d 371; Philber Equipment Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 237 F.2d 129; Yunker v. Commissioner of Int......
-
Gounares Bros. & Co. v. United States
...is virtually without substantial contradiction. Cf. Baldwin v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 750, at page 752; Riedel v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 371, at page 372; Raymond Pearson Motor Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 509, at page 513; Goldberg v. Commissioner, 5 Ci......
-
Parkside, Inc. v. Commissioner
...to sell it, the courts generally have found the taxpayer is not a dealer in real estate. Riedel v. Commissioner 58-2 USTC ¶ 9966, 261 F. 2d 371 (C.A. 5, 1958), reversing and remanding a Memorandum Opinion of this Court Dec. 22,649(M); Yunker v. Commissioner 58-1 USTC ¶ 9487, 256 F. 2d 130 (......