Lexplug logoLexplug

MAULDIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Two Cases)

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
41 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1126, 195 F.2d 714, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4037 (1952)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Property is considered 'held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of trade or business' if sales are frequent and continuous, even if the taxpayer is not actively soliciting sales. The purpose for which the property was ultimately held is the determinative factor for tax classification, not the original purpose of acquisition.


Facts:

  • In 1920, C. E. Mauldin purchased a 160-acre tract of land near Clovis, New Mexico, with the original intention of starting a cattle business.
  • After abandoning his cattle business plan due to adverse economic conditions, Mauldin was unable to sell the entire tract and, upon advice, platted it into lots and blocks in 1924, creating the 'Mauldin Addition'.
  • By 1939, the land was within city limits, and the city assessed Mauldin approximately $25,000 for paving liens.
  • To pay the debt, Mauldin actively engaged in selling lots during 1939 and 1940, using real estate agents, advertising, and personal solicitation.
  • After paying off the liens in 1940, Mauldin claimed he ceased business activities related to the lots, holding them for investment while focusing full-time on his lumber business.
  • Despite ceasing active promotion, Mauldin continued to sell lots when approached by buyers, with sales increasing significantly in 1944 and 1945 due to a local population boom.
  • The income from lot sales in 1944 and 1945 was substantial, at times rivaling or exceeding the income from his primary lumber business.

Procedural Posture:

  • C. E. Mauldin (petitioner) filed his 1944 and 1945 tax returns, reporting profit from lot sales as long-term capital gains.
  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) determined the profit was ordinary income and assessed a tax deficiency.
  • Mauldin challenged the deficiency in the Tax Court of the United States (the court of first instance).
  • The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's determination, holding that the lots were property held for sale in the ordinary course of business.
  • Mauldin, as the appellant, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is property considered 'held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of trade or business' when a taxpayer, who originally acquired the land for other purposes and later subdivided and actively sold it to pay debts, continues to sell a substantial number of lots without active promotion after the debts are paid?


Opinions:

Majority - Murrah, Circuit Judge

Yes. The property is considered held for sale in the ordinary course of business. Although the taxpayer ceased active solicitation, the continuity and frequency of sales, driven by strong market demand, indicate that he continued to hold the property for sale to customers. The court reasoned that the taxpayer sold more lots in 1945 without solicitation than he did in 1940 with active promotion, demonstrating that he consistently had lots available for sale and the volume depended on economic conditions. The substantial income derived from these sales further supports the conclusion that it was part of his business. Citing Rollingwood Corp. v. Commissioner, the court emphasized that the ultimate question is the purpose for which the property was held at the time of sale, not the original purpose for which it was acquired.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies that a taxpayer's subjective intent to change the purpose of holding property from 'business' to 'investment' is not controlling if objective factors, such as the frequency and continuity of sales, indicate otherwise. It establishes that a taxpayer cannot easily exit a 'trade or business' classification simply by becoming a passive seller, especially in a strong market where sales occur without solicitation. This precedent puts taxpayers liquidating subdivided real estate on notice that such sales will likely generate ordinary income, requiring a clear and definitive cessation of all sales-related activity to successfully claim a change in purpose.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query MAULDIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Two Cases) (1952) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for MAULDIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Two Cases)