Rubino v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Curtis Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1955)
- Philber Equip. Corp. v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 1955)
- Crabtree v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1953)
- Cohn v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1953)
- McGah v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1952)
- Winnick v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1951)
- Fabiani v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1973)
- Ridgewood Land Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)
- Victor Lee Coffey, Sr., and Margaret H. Coffey v. United States (10th Cir. 1964)
- W. E. Starke and Cecilia, G. Starke v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1963)
- Grant v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1963)
- Raymond Bauschard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1960)
- Greene-Haldeman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1960)
- Butler v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1960)
- Cole v. United States (District Court, D. Wyoming 1956)
- Alice E. Cohn, Marion A. Cohn, Daniel E. Cohn, and Edgar M. Cohn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1955)
- Curtis Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1955)
- McConkey v. United States (Court of Claims 1955)
- Adler v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1953)
- Crabtree v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1953)
- Cohn v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1953)
- Friend v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (10th Cir. 1952)
- Rubino v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Two Cases) (9th Cir. 1951)
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 of the Court
These cases are here on petition to review a decision of the Tax Court relating to a deficiency assessment. The Commissioner had determined that the property involved, namely, a number of houses constructed by the petitioners, were held by the latter primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course o.f trade or business within the meaning of § 117(j) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117(j) (1), hence the profit from the sale is taxable •as ordinary income. Petitioners’ argument is that the property was held primarily for rental purposes, and that the gains from the sales should be treated as long-term capital gains. The Tax Court made findings resolving the dispute in favor of the Commissioner’s determination.
The issue is essentially one of fact. We see no clear error in the Court’s finding, and its judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.