¶1dissenting: Moore was engaged in this business for profit and not as a mere hobby for his personal satisfaction. His profits are realized through sales. He obviously was holding most of his animals for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his business. The Commissioner’s determination is presumed to be correct and the burden is upon Moore to show that each animal sold was not held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business but was held primarily for breeding purposes, if the Commissioner taxed the gain on that sale as ordinary income. The best evidence of the primary purpose for which any particular animal was held is what he did with it. If he actually used it for breeding, that fact would probably be determinative, but if he never actually used it for breeding, then the fact that he sold it would best indicate his principal purpose in holding it. I would then tax as ordinary income the gain from the animals shown and sold if they were never actually used for breeding purposes.
31 T.C. 735
Moore v. Commissioner
Decided January 16, 1959
United States Tax Court · decided 1959-01-16
Held, on the facts 70 of the 151 head of cattle sold by petitioners during the years in issue were, at the time of their sale, held for breeding purposes within the meaning of… Held: on the facts 70 of the 151 head of cattle sold by petitioners during the years in issue were, at the time of their sale, held for breeding purposes within the meaning of section 117(j)(1) of the 1939 Code, thus entitling petitioners to treat the gains realized thereon as long-term capital gains.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1982
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decision will be entered under Rule 50 · Decided 1959-01-16
View the full empirical analysis of this case →