DocketNumber: Docket No. 5356-77.
Filed Date: 4/22/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
TIETJENS,
At the time of purchasing this tract, the men intended to have an industrial and commercial development built around the proposed Holiday Inn, which property was not a part of Tract 2347. They had hoped to develop the tract completely within ten years. Soon after they purchased this tract, they applied for and received approval to subdivide the land into 14 separate plots and a street intersecting the property. Between March and September, 1962, the taxpayers paid approximately $ 240,000 to improve the property.
Shortly after they acquired Tract 2347, a market analysis, prepared by Stanford Research Institute at the three men's request, showed a pessimistic outlook for rental or leasing of this property. In 1965 or 1966, the State of California condemned a portion of this tract and this event aggravated the poor prospects of leasing. By 1972, any momentum for developing this tract had dissipated. *554 By the end of 1970, 14 sales or exchanges were made on lots of Tract 2347. *555 MGC Company, a construction company incorporated in 1956 by McManus, Gutleben, and Chick, had constructed 3 buildings on the lots of Tract 2347 sold through 1970: for the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Carpenters' Union, and the Blue Chip Stamp.
On July 18, 1972, McManus, Chick, and Gutleben transferred title, by means of a "Holding Agreement," to the portions of Tract 2347 which were sold in 1973 to Title Insurance and Trust Company whose sole and exclusive responsibility was to convey title to the property as directed by any one of these three men.
On February 15, 1973, Lot Number 6 of Tract 2347 was sold to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for $ 137,880, *556 On August 7, 1973, all but one *557 partner and who relied on McManus for decisions on this tract of land, *558 McManus, Gutleben, and Chick, that the CDC sale was in bulk, and that, consequently, gains from these sales are entitled to capital gains treatment.
Respondent argues that since in
We agree with respondent.
Under the definition provided in
"[P]rimarily," as used in
The issue of whether property is held as a capital asset or for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business is a factual question.
Being a departure from the normal tax rates, capital gains provisions are to be construed narrowly.
After reviewing these factors, in
The purpose for which the property is held at the time of sale, however, determines the taxable nature of the gain,
*562 After reviewing the evidence, we find that there was no difference in the manner of dealing between the sales in 1973 and those made in the earlier years. All subdivision and improvements were completed by 1962. Two sales were made in 1973 while in the three prior years between one and three sales were made. MGC Company built a building on the parcel sold to BSA but no building was constructed on the property sold to CDC; similarly between 1968 and 1970, MGC built a building on one of the lots while the other five remained undeveloped. The percentage of profits from the two sales in 1973 amounted to, approximately, 178 and 244 percent as compared to between, approximately, 137 percent and 332 percent for sales between 1968 and 1970. A real estate broker was used in the sale to CDC but not to BSA just as brokers were used in only two of the six sales made between 1968 and 1970. The partnership seriously considered many offers to lease the property both prior and subsequent to 1971. Finally, characteristic of all of the sales of Tract 2347, there was no solicitation by the owners; instead, the sellers relied on the general knowledge in the real estate community that they held*563 parcels of Tract 2347 for sale and in 1973, as in all previous years, prospective buyers approached them.
Cases that have found a change in purpose include situations where there has been a sudden need for cash, *564 not contacting them afterwards, by waiting until they received a good profit percentage for the property, we find that petitioners have not shown that circumstances had changed. It appears just as likely to us that the sellers would have continued to hold the property for the next few years until they were offered a good deal. *565 period, the lack of change in the manner they dealt with the property, and McManus' continuous involvement with MGC and UCC in prior years, all indicate the lack of intention to liquidate their holdings. That more lots were included in this sale, since no prior offers for bulk sales were made, does not prove that the sellers wanted to liquidate their holdings; considering the nature of the dealings between the sellers and CDC and the manner of all prior dealings, it is equally plausible that this sale involved more lots than other sales because CDC merely wanted to purchase a larger piece of property.
Finally, a liquidation may be one of an investment asset or of an asset in the ordinary course of business. If the seller is in the real estate business and merely sells his last piece of property carrying on the sale in the same manner in which his business is ordinarily conducted, the sale is not entitled to capital gains treatment.
We find that the two 1973 sales of*566 Tract 2347 were sales of property held primarily for sales to customers in the ordinary course of business. Petitioners, therefore, must recognize their portion of the gain from these sales as ordinary income.
*. This case was heard by Judge William H. Quealy. Due to Judge Quealy↩'s resignation from the Court, the case was reassigned.
1. In 1971 and 1972, the three men negotiated with General Motors for the construction of a building on about six acres of Tract 2347 for rental purposes but no agreement was reached between the parties. In 1972, they negotiated with National Stereo Stores for the possibility of building on and leasing a portion of Tract 2347 but again no agreement was achieved. Subsequent to Gutleben's death, serious negotiations, including consideration of the type of building wanted by the company, of the value of the property, and of the type of lease and activities allowable, were entered into with Ortho Matress Company to lease a portion of the Tract. In 1973, other plans under consideration included exchanging a portion of Tract 2347 for property held by Rhodes and Jamieson, leasing a building to Builders' Exchange, and leasing a portion of Tract 2347 with a building on it to Travelodge International Corporation.↩
Sales | Gross | Broker | ||
Year | Purchaser | Price | Profit | Used |
1962 | Three Companies (Holiday Inn Hotel) | $ 275,000 | $ 115,527 | No |
1962 | Shell Oil Company | 89,000 | 37,389 | No |
1962 | Standard Oil Company | 100,000 | 42,000 | Yes |
1962 | City of Oakland | 31,000 | 13,065 | Yes |
1964 | R. and D. Bardell (Foster's | |||
Freeze Restaurants) | 90,586 | 38,055 | Yes | |
1965 | Transferred to Real Estate Joint | |||
Holdings (Blue Chip Stamp) * | No | |||
1967 | United Brotherhood of Carpenters | 77,963 | 49,993 | Yes |
1967 | Gulf Oil Company | 150,000 | 111,859 | Yes |
1968 | Radio Corporation of America | 73,406 | 42,482 | Yes |
1968 | State of California | 308,900 | 200,989 | No |
1969 | Radio Corporation of America | 22,500 | 16,230 | No |
1970 | International Brotherhood of | |||
Boilermakers | 92,531 | 71,111 | Yes | |
1970 | California Dept. of Motor Vehicles | 312,500 | 221,636 | No |
1970 | Shell Oil Company | Exchange | 67,421 | No |
n* In 1965, MGC transferred a parcel in Tract 2347 to a partnership, Real Estate Joint Holdings (REJH). The three equal partners of REJH were McManus, Gutleben, and Chick. Subsequently, a building was erected on the parcel and leased to Blue Chip Stamp Co. In 1967, the "Blue Chip" building was sold by REJH to Warren and Lucile Simpson for a sale price of $ 235,000. REJH realized a profit on the sale in the amount of $ 68,477.↩
3. On April 8, 1972, Gutleben had prepared a schedule showing the values these men placed on the remaining parcels of Tract 2347. The value given Lot 6 was $ 137,890.
On the sale to BSA, McManus realized a gain of one-third or approximately $ 32,580.67.↩
4. Respondent concedes that the sale of Lot 6 was properly reported under the installment method pursuant to
5. As of the date of the trial, McManus, Gutleben, and Chick, held an interest in this property which was then being leased to a restaurant. The property had been vacant for approximately two years and had only been rented out again to its new operators in November, 1977. ↩
6. McManus realized a gain of one-third or $ 320,249.↩
7. Chick had, at one time, given McManus his power of attorney.↩
8. UCC was originally owned mainly by McManus, Gutleben, and Chick. In 1968, Chick disposed of his entire interest in UCC and on Gutleben's death, UCC purchased Gutleben's interest.↩
9. Petitioners have argued that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable because of the change in circumstances here. Respondent has not pursued a contrary argument and we agree with petitioners on this issue. The prior judgment in
10. See, e.g.
11. See, e.g.
12. For the property sold to BSA, the sellers received almost precisely the figure they estimated the property to be worth about ten months prior to the sale.↩
Commissioner v. Sunnen ( 1948 )
McManus v. Commissioner ( 1975 )
Raymond Bauschard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1960 )
thomas-k-mcmanus-and-margaret-f-mcmanus-v-commissioner-of-internal ( 1978 )
Home Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1954 )
GARDENS OF FAITH, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF ... ( 1965 )
United States v. Ada Belle Winthrop, Individually and as ... ( 1969 )