Warren v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1433,78-1433 |
| Parties | 80-1 USTC P 9303 Bobby WARREN and Modelle Warren, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard W. Perkins, Atty., Gilbert E. Andrews, Act. Chief, Appellate Sect., James A. Riedy, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Crenshaw, DuPree & Milam, John R. Crews, Lubbock, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GEWIN, RUBIN and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
This is a refund action brought by the Warrens for the recovery of federal income taxes for the years 1969 and 1970. The question before us is whether sale proceeds received by cotton gins for the taxpayers are properly included in the taxpayer's gross income for the years in which the sales were made.
Bobby and Modelle Warren are Texas cotton growers using the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting for tax purposes. In 1969 and 1970 they took their cotton to the Cotton King Gin and the Sand Gin Company.
These gins, in addition to ginning and baling, also arranged sales of the cotton for producers interested in selling. The gin obtained prices from a number of prospective buyers and relayed the information to the producer. When a producer was satisfied with a price, he could authorize the gin to sell the cotton and obtain the proceeds of the transaction. As an additional option, the producer could instruct the gin to "defer" the cotton. When cotton was "deferred" the purchase price was paid directly to the gin and not to the producer; the proceeds of the sale were retained by the gin and were not transferred to the producer until the following year. In return for the gins services, the buyer of the cotton paid the gin a set fee based solely upon the bales obtained. The producer paid the gin only for the actual ginning of the cotton.
The Warrens followed this procedure with both the Cotton King Gin and the Sand Gin Company 1 in the years 1969 and 1970. Their cotton was sold in November and December of both years. King Gin deposited the sale proceeds for the Warrens' cotton in its own account and issued a check to the Warrens on January 2nd of the following year. Sand Gin Company deposited the funds in an escrow account at Lamesa National Bank. On January 2, 1970, the bank issued a check to the Warrens for their sale proceeds.
In reporting their income from 1969 and 1970, the Warrens did not include these sales proceeds. The sale proceeds for each year were included in the following year's tax return. After an audit, the IRS determined the proceeds should have been included in the Warrens' income for the year in which the sale occurred. The Warrens paid the tax deficit and sought a refund. The IRS disallowed their claim and in May, 1976, suit was filed by the Warrens in the Northern District of Texas.
The case was tried to a jury in August, 1977. The United States moved for a directed verdict during trial, and the motion was denied. The jury retired with four special interrogatories, and returned a verdict for the Warrens. After final judgment for the Warrens was entered, the United States filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. This motion was denied and this appeal was instituted.
Section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that income is to be included in gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer. Even so, courts are often called upon to determine exactly when a taxpayer is deemed to have "received" income. One doctrine that has been adopted for the resolution of these disputes is the proposition that receipt by an agent is receipt by the principal. Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 342, 346, 40 S.Ct. 155, 156, 64 L.Ed. 297 (1920). The government's contention throughout this dispute has been that the gins were the Warrens' agents.
The government raises two points of error on appeal. It argues initially that the district court erred in not granting either the motion for a directed verdict or the motion for judgment n.o.v. Alternatively, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury. We agree with the government's first contention and reverse.
The standard to be applied by a district court when passing on a motion for directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. is well settled. "If the facts and inferences...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meier v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...and the funds were handled for petitioner's benefit and control, such funds constitute income to petitioner. See Warren v. United States, 613 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Pfister, 205 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1953), Huntington National Bank v. Commissioner, 90 F.2d 876 (6th Cir. 193......
-
Gale v. Commissioner
...agent to defer recognition of the income is ineffective to defer taxable receipt. Id.; Warren v. United States [80-1 USTC ¶ 9303], 613 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1980) (attempt by farmer through agreement with cotton gin to defer recognition of income from sale of cotton ineffective because gin was......
-
Reed v. C.I.R.
...69 T.C. at 516; Amend, 13 T.C. at 184-85. Compare Arnwine v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1102, 1111-12 (5th Cir.1983); Warren v. United States, 613 F.2d 591, 593 (5th Cir.1980) (agreement between seller and his agent for deferral of payment ineffective to defer income Similarly, an existing agre......
-
Russo v. Commissioner
...Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States [1 USTC ¶ 29], 251 U.S. 342, 347 (1920); Warren v. United States [80-1 USTC ¶ 9303], 613 F.2d 591, 592-593 (5th Cir. 1980); Fogarty v. United States [86-1 USTC ¶ 9139], 780 F.2d 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. Petitioners further contend that the gross receipts ......