- 15 -
While a sharecropping arrangement is permissible, cash leasing
the property to someone else constitutes use of the property by
the qualified heir in a passive rental activity, not use of the
property as a farm for farming purposes. Id. at 84; see
Williamson v. Commissioner, supra at 247.
The omnipresent risk of nonpayment does not suffice to turn
a cash lease into an "at-risk" proposition for purposes of
section 2032A. In Williamson v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 242
(1989), this Court held that a cash lease between the qualified
heir, who lived in California and had inherited a Minnesota farm,
and his nephew in Minnesota triggered a recapture tax. See also
Stovall v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 140 (1993); Fisher v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-139; Shaw v. Commissioner, supra.
Moreover, we have routinely found cash leases to nonfamily
members to effect a cessation of qualified use, triggering the
recapture tax. In addition to Martin v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.
620 (1985), the Court in Hight v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-
81, found an oral cash lease to be a cessation of qualified use.
See also LeFever v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 525 (1994),
supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1995-321, affd. 100 F.3d 788 (10th
Cir. 1996) (holding that cash rental use of the property is not a
trade or business and therefore does not constitute a qualified
use).
In the instant case, the Nicollet farm was used by unrelated
parties pursuant to leases under which the payments did not hinge
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011