F. M. Bistline and Anne Bistline, Husband and Wife v. United States

In this case, the familiar question, as to whether profit from real estate transactions is to be treated as capital gain or as ordinary income, is raised.

The trial court made findings as follows:

These findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence. The conclusion that such profits were taxable as ordinary income is inescapable. This Court adheres to the rule that such questions are of fact and that the findings of the trial court should be upheld unless clearly erroneous or where, on the record as a whole, it is clear that a mistake has been made. Although we do not consider these binding on the fact situation here, the opinions listed below are illustrative of the approach of the courts to similar problems. See United States v. Beard, 9 Cir., 260 F.2d 81 ; Bistline v. United States, 9 Cir., 260 F.2d 77 ; Pool v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 251 F.2d 233 ; Achong v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 246 F.2d 445 ; Stockton Harbor Industrial Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 216 F.2d 638 ; Richards v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 369 , 106 A.L.R. 249 ; and see Fowler v. United States, D.C., 154 F.Supp. 859 .

Afiirmed.