- 15 -
subordinated or that all of its customers were 100-percent
mortgaged.
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