McDougal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

62 T.C. 720 (1974)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

McDougal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
62 T.C. 720 (1974)

Facts

F.C. and Frankie McDougal (plaintiffs) owned a racehorse named Iron Card. F.C. promised horse trainer Gilbert McClanahan (plaintiff) a one-half interest in Iron Card if McClanahan trained Iron Card. Iron Card began racing successfully, and the McDougals received numerous offers to buy Iron Card, including one for $60,000. However, the McDougals decided to keep Iron Card. On October 4, 1968, the McDougals transferred a one-half interest in Iron Card to McClanahan. On November 1, 1968, the McDougals and McClanahan entered an oral partnership agreement under which they agreed to race Iron Card as long as feasible and then offer Iron Card for breeding. The McDougals and McClanahan were to share the venture’s profits equally, but losses would be borne by the McDougals alone. On their 1968 tax return, the McDougals reported gross income of $22,891 from their farm and deducted $1,390 in depreciation and $9,200 in training fees for Iron Card. The McDougals subsequently filed an amended tax return in which they claimed to have transferred the one-half interest in Iron Card to McClanahan as compensation for services rendered. The McDougals thus claimed a $30,000 business-expense deduction, calculated based on one-half of the $60,000 offer the McDougals had received for Iron Card. The McDougals further acknowledged a $25,000 long-term capital gain on the transfer of the interest in Iron Card. The McDougals and the McClanahans claimed to have jointly transferred Iron Card to their partnership on November 1, 1968, and claimed that the partnership had a basis in Iron Card of $33,610. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) determined deficiencies in the McDougals’ and the McClanahans’ tax returns, asserting that (1) the McDougals and McClanahan had entered into a joint venture as of October 4, 1968, and (2) the McDougals contributed Iron Card and McClanahan contributed services to the venture. The commissioner claimed that under that interpretation, the McDougals recognized no gain on the transfer. The McDougals and McClanahans challenged the deficiency determination in tax court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fay, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership