Bynum v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 295, 1966 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 94 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Gains from the sale of real estate are taxable as ordinary income, not long-term capital gains, when the property is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a taxpayer's trade or business, meaning that sale is the purpose of 'first importance'. This determination focuses on the taxpayer's activities and purpose at the time of sale, rather than acquisition.
Facts:
- In January 1942, S. O. Bynum and Fannie R. Bynum purchased a 113-acre farm in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where they operated a nursery and landscaping business and resided.
- By October 1958, due to losses in their nursery business, the Bynums had accumulated $70,000 in loans from City National Bank, secured by a mortgage on their farm, and the bank was pressuring them for repayment.
- In 1959, after being advised by the bank to sell the farm and receiving an offer of only $40,000 'as is' (less than their mortgage), the Bynums decided to improve and subdivide a portion of their farm.
- By September 1960, the Bynums had subdivided 38 lots from 20-25 acres of the farm, spending approximately $24,763.97 ($650 per lot) on substantial improvements like streets, water, and sewerage.
- The Bynums held a formal opening for their 'Morayshire Estates' subdivision, advertising it with full-page ads and listing lots with local realtors, with petitioner husband personally making all sales, which included 12 lots in 1960 and 8 lots in 1961.
- In 1962, they further subdivided 17 additional lots at a cost of about $1,300 per lot, and their advertising indicated plans for developing a total of 233 lots.
- Petitioner husband spent 90-95 percent of his time on the nursery business and 5-10 percent on subdividing and selling activities.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) determined deficiencies in S. O. Bynum and Fannie R. Bynum's (Petitioners') income taxes for the calendar years 1960 and 1961.
- The Petitioners filed a petition with the United States Tax Court, challenging the IRS's determination.
- The United States Tax Court, a court of first instance for tax disputes, reviewed the case to decide whether the admitted gains from sales of real estate during the years in issue were taxable as ordinary income or as long-term capital gain.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a taxpayer's extensive subdivision, improvement, and active marketing of previously held investment property, undertaken to resolve debt, constitute holding the property 'primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business,' thereby making the gains taxable as ordinary income rather than long-term capital gains?
Opinions:
Majority - Forrester, Judge
Yes, the gains from the sales of the subdivided lots are taxable as ordinary income because the property was held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the Bynums' real estate business. The court, guided by Malat v. Riddell, found that 'primarily' means 'of first importance' or 'principally.' While the property was initially acquired for the nursery business, the purpose of 'holding' the property had changed by the time of sale. The Bynums' activities—including substantial improvements (more than double the land's value per acre), efforts extending beyond merely covering the mortgage (subdividing 38 lots when 26 would suffice, with plans for 233), extensive advertising, and the petitioner husband's personal involvement in all phases of development and sales—demonstrated an active engagement in a new business of selling subdivided lots. The court concluded that this purpose was of 'first importance' to the petitioners during the years in question. The gain realized was generated by these active development efforts, not simply from passive appreciation over time, thus falling within the 'profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a business' as distinguished from 'the realization of appreciation in value accrued over a substantial period of time.'
Concurring - Tannenwald, J.
Yes, the decision that the gains are ordinary income is correct. Justice Tannenwald concurred to clarify the interpretation of 'primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business' following Malat v. Riddell. He emphasized that 'primarily' means 'of first importance' and does not necessarily require a quantitative measurement of over 50%. He also stressed that the 'in the ordinary course of business' element is crucial, requiring the taxpayer to be in a business where the sale is a part of its ordinary operations, distinguishing it from an isolated disposition of an asset. He noted that profits could arise from both appreciation during the investment period and business activity, suggesting that some method of allocation within an appropriate statutory framework might be indicated to prevent hardship or unjustifiable windfalls.
Analysis:
This case provides significant clarity on the application of the 'primarily for sale' test after the Supreme Court's decision in Malat v. Riddell, particularly for taxpayers who convert investment property into business inventory. It establishes that extensive development activities, even when spurred by financial distress, can transform a passive holding into an active trade or business, leading to ordinary income classification for sales gains. The case reinforces that courts will critically examine the taxpayer's purpose at the time of sale and the nature of their involvement, emphasizing that substantial improvements and active marketing are strong indicators of a business purpose. It signals that simply having another primary occupation does not shield income from an actively managed 'second business' from ordinary income treatment.
