Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Gordon J. Harmston and Alice C. Harmston, Petitioners-appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 528 F.2d 55
Jan. 23, 1976
William P. Irwin, of Irwin & Thuesen, Fresno, Cal., for petitioners-appellants.
Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, John G. Manning, Gilbert T. Andrews, Attys., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.
Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The matter is here on petition of Gordon J. Harmston and Alice C. Harmston, his wife, to review a decision of the United States Tax Court sustaining the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies in petitioners' income taxes for the calendar years 1967, 1968 and 1969. The Tax Court opinion is reported in 61 T.C. 216 (1973).
The deficiencies stemmed from the Commissioner's conclusion that portions of the amounts paid by petitioners as vendees under separate but essentially similar contracts for the purchase of two orange groves, although characterized in the contracts as being for the vendor's management and care of the groves, in fact constituted nondeductible capital investment and hence were not deductible from petitioners' gross income.
Having thoroughly examined the matter, we hold that the conclusion of the Tax Court was correct, and we affirm on the basis of its opinion.
It is so ordered.