Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Frank J. Evans and Margueritte A. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

413 F.2d 1047

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-07-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The taxpayers purchased a trailer park and subsequently operated it. Stipulated portions of the purchase price represented the cost of four utility systems which had been installed for sewage disposal and for the distribution of electricity, gas, and water to those who rented space in the facility. The issue presented is whether the taxpayers are entitled to an investment credit (under sections 38, 46, and 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) for the cost of the four systems. The Tax Court held that the utility systems were not “Section 38 property” and did not qualify for the investment credit, since the taxpayers were not engaged in the trade or business of furnishing such utility services. Evans v.

Citator

Cited by
35 opinions
EVANS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,413 F.2d 1047(9th Cir. 1969)
Frank J. EVANS and Margueritte A. Evans, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 22509.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 7, 1969.
Martin J. May (argued), of Noland, Hamerly, Etienne Fulton, Salinas, Cal., for appellants.

Carolyn R. Just (argued), Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Crombie J.D. Garrett, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, HAMLIN, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The taxpayers purchased a trailer park and subsequently operated it. Stipulated portions of the purchase price represented the cost of four utility systems which had been installed for sewage disposal and for the distribution of electricity, gas, and water to those who rented space in the facility. The issue presented is whether the taxpayers are entitled to an investment credit (under sections 38, 46, and 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) for the cost of the four systems. The Tax Court held that the utility systems were not "Section 38 property" and did not qualify for the investment credit, since the taxpayers were not engaged in the trade or business of furnishing such utility services. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,48 T.C. 704(1967);seeInt.Rev.Code of 1954, § 48(a)(1)(B)(i).

We affirm upon the opinion of the Tax Court.See alsoMt. Mansfield Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 409 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1969) (per curiam), aff'g50 T.C. 798(1968).Page 1048