(Download) "Snell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue." by United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Snell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Release Date : January 05, 1938
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
This case concerns income taxes for the years 1924 to 1927 inclusive, the Board of Tax Appeals having denied the taxpayer the benefit of the capital net gains rates provided in the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926, 43 Stat. 253, 44 Stat. 9, even as to profits realized during the tax years on instalment sales made in the year 1923. The gains all arose from sales of land near St. Petersburg, Florida, which had been held by the taxpayer for more than two years. The Revenue Act of 1921, Sect. 206(a)(6), 42 Stat. 232, had included in capital assets "property acquired and held by the taxpayer for profit or investment for more than two years (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but [not] * * * stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year." The Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 in Section 208(a)(8), 43 Stat. 262, 44 Stat. 19 added to the express words of exclusion, "or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale in the course of his trade or business." The Board held that this taxpayer in all the years 1923 to 1927 inclusive was in the business of selling lots, and that the lands subdivided and sold by him were held primarily for sale in the course of that business, but that such lands were not a "stock in trade", nor proper to be "included in an inventory" within the meaning of the Act of 1921; so that as to gains realized from their sale in 1923 the capital gains rate applied at the taxpayers election; but thalt the gains taxable under the later Acts were not to be so treated. The taxpayer here contends that the evidence does not authorize the Boards finding that he was "actively and continuously engaged in the development and sale of real estate;" and that the deferred instalments of 1923 sales should be taxed under the same rule as the cash payments.