Malat v. Riddell case
brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
383 U.S. 569, 86 S. Ct.
1030, 16 L. Ed. 2d 102, 1966 U.S.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
and his wife obtained a writ of certiorari to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the judgment affirming
the district court's order holding that parcels of real estate in
which petitioner sold his interest as a joint venturer were primarily
used for sale in the ordinary course of business under 26 U.S.C.S. §
1221(1), and thus, had to be taxed as ordinary income, not capital
gains.
FACTS: Petitioner was a member of a joint venture that bought a parcel of real estate to develop and operate an apartment complex. Because of financial difficulties, some of the lots were sold, and the profits were taxed as ordinary income. Additional difficulties caused petitioner to sell his interest in the remaining lots. The district court held that the joint venturers intended either to sell the property or to develop it for rental, thus petitioner failed to prove that the property was not primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, the profits from petitioner's sale of his interest in the remaining lots were to be taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court held that the ordinary meaning of the word "primarily" in 26 U.S.C.S. § 1221(1) meant "of first importance." The Court held that the district court used the wrong standard to determine if the lots were primarily for use in the ordinary course of business or were simply held for a period of time while their value appreciated. The Court, therefore, vacated the judgment and remanded the case.
CONCLUSION: The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for fresh fact-findings addressed to the statute as construed in the opinion.
---
FACTS: Petitioner was a member of a joint venture that bought a parcel of real estate to develop and operate an apartment complex. Because of financial difficulties, some of the lots were sold, and the profits were taxed as ordinary income. Additional difficulties caused petitioner to sell his interest in the remaining lots. The district court held that the joint venturers intended either to sell the property or to develop it for rental, thus petitioner failed to prove that the property was not primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, the profits from petitioner's sale of his interest in the remaining lots were to be taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court held that the ordinary meaning of the word "primarily" in 26 U.S.C.S. § 1221(1) meant "of first importance." The Court held that the district court used the wrong standard to determine if the lots were primarily for use in the ordinary course of business or were simply held for a period of time while their value appreciated. The Court, therefore, vacated the judgment and remanded the case.
CONCLUSION: The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for fresh fact-findings addressed to the statute as construed in the opinion.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment