- 24 -
In Hi-Plains Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 158
(1973), affd. 496 F.2d 520 (10th Cir. 1974), and Cameron v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-259, two cases decided before the
enactment of section 447, we held that taxpayers who operated
commercial feedlots were “farmers” and the feedlot was a “farm”
under the Internal Revenue Code. The taxpayers were permitted
to use the cash method pursuant to section 1.471-6(a), Income
Tax Regs.
The facts of the aforementioned farming cases are
distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the farming
cases, the taxpayers engaged in the business activity of
farming, as defined in sections 175(c)(2), 180(b), 182(c), and
6420(c)(2) and (3) and sections 1.61-4(d), 1.175-3, 1.180-1(b),
and 1.182-2, Income Tax Regs. Section 1.471-6(a), Income Tax
Regs., permits taxpayers who meet the definition under these
sections to use the cash method. See Maple Leaf Farms, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 447.
Unlike the taxpayers in Maple Leaf Farms, Inc., Hi-Plains
Enters., Inc., and Cameron, petitioner does not operate a
“farm”, and its business activities do not meet the definition
of “the business of farming” or “farming” under these sections.
For example, in section 175(c)(2), which the Court cited in
Maple Leaf Farms, Inc., “land used in farming” means “land used
* * * by the taxpayer or his tenant for the production of crops,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011