Fairfield Plaza, Inc. v. Commissioner Contents Background Opinion of the court References Navigation menu39...


United States Tax Court casesUnited States taxation and revenue case law1963 in United States case law


Tax Courtreturn of capitalescrowIRStax return





































Fairfield Plaza, Inc. v. Commissioner
Seal of the United States Tax Court.svg
Court United States Tax Court
Full case name Fairfield Plaza, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Decided January 23, 1963 (1963-01-23)
Citation(s)
39 T.C. 706 (1963)
Court membership
Judge sitting Bruce
Case opinions
Decision by Bruce
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code
Keywords
  • Return on capital

Fairfield Plaza, Inc. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 706 (1963)[1] was a case before the United States Tax Court discussing timing alternatives in taxing the return of capital.




Contents






  • 1 Background


    • 1.1 Facts


    • 1.2 Tax return


      • 1.2.1 Issues






  • 2 Opinion of the court


  • 3 References





Background



Facts


The taxpayer purchased a piece of land, divided it into two tracts, and made certain improvements.


The taxpayer sold both of the tracts of land in different years and allocated his basis between the two tracts based upon area. The taxpayer also allocated certain amounts that had been placed into escrow between the two tracts. The amounts in escrow were for improvements to the tract that was sold last.



Tax return


The IRS determined that the taxpayer improperly allocated these allocations in its tax return.



Issues


The taxpayer challenged the IRS's determination, claiming that the IRS erroneously determined the proper allocation of his basis between the two tracts of land and that the IRS erroneously allocated the amounts that were placed in escrow for improvements between the two tracts of land.



Opinion of the court


The court affirmed, finding that the allocation of basis was not proper within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6, reasoning that:



  • the relative values of the two tracts were different

  • the tract that was sold last was of a greater value

  • the taxpayer was not entitled to allocate the amounts placed into escrow between the two tracts of land. The court reasoned that the amounts in question were used for improvements to the tract that was sold last.



References





  1. ^ Fairfield Plaza, Inc. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 706 (T.C. 1963).








Popular posts from this blog

Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

Should I use Docker or LXD?How to cache (more) data on SSD/RAM to avoid spin up?Unable to get Windows File...