Am. Props., Inc. v. Comm'r Of Internal Revenue, 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Props., Inc. v. Comm'r Of Internal Revenue, 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
173 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue (ca9, 1977-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue
9th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Thus, it was an "ordinary and necessary" business expense, and the Tax Court's contrary determination was clearly erroneous and will be set aside (see American Properties, Inc. v. C.I.R., 262 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir. 1958)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hillcone S.S. Co. v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1963 · confidence medium
American Properties, Inc., 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affirmed per curiam 262 F. 2d 150 *160 (C.A. 9, 1958).
cited Cited "see" Bacon v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116 (1957) , affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
cited Cited "see" Rower v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
cited Cited "see" Sann v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner , 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) ; Buck v. Commissioner , T.C.
cited Cited "see" Buck v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner , 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
cited Cited "see" Gill v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner , 28 T.C. 1100 , 1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
discussed Cited "see" Young v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1118 (1957) , affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) ; compare Otis v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 671 , 675 (1980) (where good faith reliance on the advice of a competent tax expert relieved the taxpayer from a negligence addition).
discussed Cited "see" Cox v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116 , (1957), affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) . *489 Petitioner alternatively claims that the ownership and original cost of the coins was disputed and that he thought the proceeds were not taxable because they were his personal property.
cited Cited "see" McCabe v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See, generally, American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) ; Challenge Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 650 , 663 (1962) .
discussed Cited "see" Macri Corp. v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc., 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) . *153 We hold that Pat received dividend income through the use of the company owned car in the following amounts: 1965 $1,200 1966 1,800 1967 1,800 1968 1,800 We also hold that Pat received dividend income in each of the years in question equal to the fair rental value of the house which was owned by Macri and which was used by Pat and Roxy as their personal residence.Petitioners argue that Pat paid for the use of the house by virtue of having paid various maintenance expenses.
cited Cited "see" Snyder v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc., 28 T.C. 1100 , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 .
cited Cited "see" Metcalf v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Properties, Inc., 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 (C.A. 9, 1958).
cited Cited "see, e.g." West v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jacobs v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare American Properties Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alaska Plastics, Inc. v. Coppock
Alaska · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 262 F.2d 150 , 151 (9th Cir. 1958) (payments for taxpayer’s speed boat a dividend); Greenspon v. Commissioner, 229 F.2d 947 (8th Cir. 1956) (payments for a “horticultural show place” not a corporate expense).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also American Properties, Inc., 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 (C.A. 9, 1958).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Adirondack League Club v. Commissioner (2×)
Tax Ct. · 1971 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., American Properties, Inc ., 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 (C.A. 9, 1958), which position is in agreement with the weight of *809 authority on this issue.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Turner v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also American Properties, Inc. 28 T.C. 1100 (1957) , affd. 262 F. 2d 150 (C.A. 9, 1958).
cited Cited "see, e.g." f
unknown court · How · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 2d 764 , 111 S. Ct. 2631 (1991) ; see also American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 , 1116-1117 (1957) , affd. per curiam 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958) .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Properties, Inc., and the Estate of Stanley S. Sayres, Deceased, Harold L. Scott, and A. R. Munger, Executors, and Madeleine A. Sayres
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
16051_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1958.
262 F.2d 150
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

262 F.2d 150

59-1 USTC P 9130

AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC., and The Estate of Stanley S.
Sayres, deceased, Harold L. Scott, and A. R.
Munger, Executors, and Madeleine A.
Sayres, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 16051.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 1958.

Kenneth P. Short, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners.

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., George W. Beatty, Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, C. Guy Tadlock, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before ORR, CHAMBERS, and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Petitioner Stanley S. Sayres, a well known power boat racing enthusiast, sought to deduct expenses of building, maintaining and operating certain of these boats as an ordinary and necessary expense of petitioner American Properties, Inc., a corporation of which Sayres was the sole owner. Int.Rev.Code of 1939, 23(a)(1)(A), 26 U.S.C.A. 23(a)(1)(A). These deductions were denied by the Commissioner who considered them not to be business expenses, but actually dividends to Sayres as the funds in question were expended for his own personal use. Furthermore, Sayres as an individual was also denied a deduction for the same amounts which were considered dividend income to him because, just as they were not business expenses of the corporation, they were not individual business expenses of Sayres, Int.Rev.Code of 1939, 23(a)(1)(A), nor losses incurred in a trade or business or in any transaction entered into for profit, Int.Rev.Code of 1939, 23(e)(1, 2), but were sums spent in the pursuit of his hobby-- boat racing.

2

The tax court upheld the Commissioner's determinations, finding as a fact (and petitioners do not contend that it was not a finding of fact) that the activities 'with respect to the boats were not conducted with the intention of making a profit and that such activities did not constitute the conduct of a trade or business by either' Sayres or the corporation.

3

Our examination of the record convinces us that the tax court's findings that the expenditures in question were personal is substantially supported by the evidence and are not adduced from an erroneous view of the law. Hence, they are not clearly erroneous and cannot be set aside. This is true of all questions of fact including the presence or absence of a profit motive. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 1948, 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1941, 312 U.S. 212, 61 S.Ct. 475, 85 L.Ed. 783.

4

No contention is made that the monies here involved are not dividend income to Sayres after it is found that the amounts were expended for Sayres' personal use.

5

We see no purpose in detailing the evidence upon which the tax court based its decision. That information can be had by reference to the said decision. 28 T.C. 1100.

6

Affirmed.