Ward AG Products, Inc. - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         

          subordinated or that all of its customers were 100-percent                  
               Petitioner contends that Ward farmed at least three times              
          when he helped Morgan and two other farmers.  However, there is             
          no evidence that either Ward or petitioner received any income              
          from those activities.                                                      
               Petitioner contends that it was as much a farmer as the                
          taxpayer in Maple Leaf Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.  We              
          disagree.  The taxpayer in Maple Leaf Farms grew some ducklings             
          and also paid others to grow ducklings.  It selected and bought             
          ducklings and their feed and medicine.  Id. at 448.  It owned all           
          of the ducks, feed, and medicine it and its growers used.  Id.              
          It set standards for the growers who grew the ducklings.  Id. at            
          448-449.  It provided fire insurance, feed, and medicine for the            
          ducklings.  Id. at 450.  We concluded that the taxpayer was a               
          farmer.  Id. at 448.  In contrast, petitioner did not keep title            
          to the seed, fertilizer, or pesticides; it sold merchandise to              
          farmers.  Thus, petitioner is unlike the taxpayer in Maple Leaf             
          Farms, Inc.  See Estate of Wallace v. Commissioner, 965 F.2d                
          1038, 1046-1047 (11th Cir. 1992), affg. 95 T.C. 525 (1990)                  
          (taxpayer who lacked control of the management and operations and           
          had limited liability for cattle-feeding losses, and did not work           
          on feedlot, hire or fire employees was not a farmer under sec.              
          446); compare Hi-Plains Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, 496 F.2d             
          520, 523 (10th Cir. 1974), affg. 60 T.C. 158 (1973), in which the           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011