U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

R. A. Waldrep and Ruby Waldrep v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 25, 1970 · Tuttle, Dyer, Clark

428 F.2d 1216; 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5113; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8492 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Maurice F. Bishop, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioners-appellants., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, K. Martin Worthy, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Eugene F. Colella, Elmer J. Kelsey, Issie L. Jenkins, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Professional Equities v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1987)
Lichtman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1982)
Goodman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
Maddox v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1978)
Voight v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
Pritchett v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
Kirschenmann v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)
Kline v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)
Kucklick v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1984)
Coffin v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1982)
Richards v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayers appeal from an order of the Tax Court, which denied them the right to report gain on the installment method upon the sale by them of a five acre tract of land on December 30, 1963.

*1217 The two issues presented to the Tax Court involved the question whether improvements which, by an option to sell executed several months previously the taxpayers had reserved the right to remove from the property in the event of a sale, were sold with the property when it was conveyed on December 30th. The second question is whether the Tax Court correctly held that the purchasers assumed the mortgages on the property when such purchasers, in effect, paid off the mortgages and executed new ones in favor of the mortgagees.

We have carefully read and analyzed the opinion of the Tax Court, and, agreeing with the decision, we conclude that we could not better state either the facts, conclusions of law, or the rationale by which the decision is arrived at. We, therefore, adopt the opinion of the Tax Court, Waldrep v. C. I. R., 52 T.C. 640, as the opinion of this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.