Pellar v. Commissioner
1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41, 25 T.C. 299 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere purchase of property for a price less than its fair market value does not, in itself, constitute a realization of taxable income. Taxable gain is generally realized upon the sale or other disposition of the property, not upon its acquisition.
Facts:
- The Pellars contracted with Ragnar Benson, Inc., a construction company, to build a home for a fixed price of $40,000.
- Ragnar Benson offered this price because he wanted to cultivate the goodwill and future business of a man named Briskin, with whom the Pellars were associated.
- Due to miscalculations by Ragnar Benson, Inc., and changes requested by the Pellars, the cost to build the home significantly exceeded the contract price.
- Upon completion, the house (excluding land) had a fair market value of $70,000.
- The Pellars paid the agreed $40,000 to Ragnar Benson, Inc., and spent additional money on the lot and landscaping, bringing their total cost for the house to approximately $55,000.
- The transaction was not part of an employer-employee relationship, did not represent a corporate dividend distribution, and was not intended as a gift.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) determined a deficiency in the income tax of the Pellars (petitioners).
- The Pellars challenged the deficiency by filing a petition in the Tax Court of the United States, which is the court of first instance for this dispute.
- The case was tried before the Tax Court.
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 realize taxable income at the time of purchase when they acquire property for a price substantially below its fair market value in a transaction that is not compensatory, a dividend, or a gift?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, Judge
No, a taxpayer does not realize taxable income merely by purchasing property for a price below its fair market value. The general rule, as established in cases like Palmer v. Commissioner, is that profits from the purchase of property are not taxed until the property is sold or otherwise disposed of. A 'bargain purchase' can result in taxable income, but only when the transaction's substance reveals it to be something other than a simple purchase, such as compensation for services, a dividend distribution, or a gift. Here, the court found no such underlying purpose. The contractor, Ragnar Benson, Inc., absorbed the loss as a business decision to invest in goodwill with an associate of the Pellars. This action was akin to a lavish business expenditure and did not create a legal obligation or confer immediate taxable income upon the Pellars.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the foundational tax principle of 'realization,' which holds that income from property is generally not taxed until it is realized through a sale or disposition. The case clarifies that a simple 'bargain purchase,' even a substantial one, does not trigger a taxable event. It distinguishes such transactions from those where a bargain is a disguised form of income, like an employee buying company stock at a discount as part of their compensation. This precedent solidifies the importance of examining the relationship between the parties and the substance of the transaction to determine if an acquisition of property at below-market value constitutes taxable income.
