Lexplug logoLexplug

Watson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Supreme Court of United States
345 U.S. 544 (1953)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a business is sold, the portion of the profit attributable to property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of that business must be treated as ordinary income, even if that property is sold in an unmatured state along with the underlying capital assets.


Facts:

  • Mrs. M. Gladys Watson and her two brothers co-owned and operated a 110-acre navel orange grove in California as a partnership.
  • The business of the partnership was to grow and sell the oranges produced by the grove.
  • In May or June of 1944, while the orange crop was in bloom, the partners offered the entire property for sale.
  • On August 10, 1944, the partners agreed to sell the grove for $197,100, which included the land, trees, equipment, and the unmatured orange crop then on the trees.
  • The sale was finalized on September 1, 1944.
  • The sales contract did not allocate the purchase price between the unmatured crop and the other assets.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mrs. Watson filed a joint tax return treating her entire gain from the sale of the grove as a long-term capital gain.
  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency, allocating a portion of the sales price to the unmatured crop and treating the gain on that portion as ordinary income.
  • The Watsons (petitioners) challenged the deficiency in the U.S. Tax Court.
  • The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's position in principle but reduced the value allocated to the crop.
  • The Watsons appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Tax Court.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.

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:

Does the portion of profit from the sale of an orange grove attributable to an unmatured, unharvested crop of oranges constitute ordinary income rather than a capital gain for federal income tax purposes?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Burton

Yes, the portion of the profit attributable to the unmatured crop constitutes ordinary income. The crop was property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Federal tax law, not state property law, determines the character of the income. The court applied the principle from Williams v. McGowan, which holds that the sale of a going business must be 'comminuted' into its fragments, with each asset class receiving separate tax treatment. Although the oranges were not yet mature, their essential character as the product of the business remained unchanged. Therefore, the gain attributable to their value is ordinary income, not capital gain.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Minton

No, the profit should be treated as a capital gain. The unmatured oranges were part of the real property sold and should be treated as 'property used in the trade or business' under § 117(j). The taxpayer was in the business of selling mature fruit, not green fruit on the trees. The sale of the entire grove was an extraordinary transaction to exit the business, not a sale 'in the ordinary course of business' to a regular customer. Therefore, the entire lump-sum sale should be treated as the sale of a capital asset, qualifying for capital gains treatment.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that the sale of a business must be broken down into its component assets for tax purposes, preventing taxpayers from converting ordinary income into capital gain by selling inventory along with the underlying capital assets. It established that an asset's character as 'property held for sale to customers' is determined by its ultimate purpose, regardless of its stage of development at the time of sale. While Congress prospectively changed the specific rule for unharvested crops in the Revenue Act of 1951, the underlying 'comminution' doctrine from this case and Williams v. McGowan remains a fundamental concept in business taxation.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Watson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1953) 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 Watson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue