Document: 383 U.S. 569 86 S.Ct. 1030 16 L.Ed.2d 102 William MALAT et ux., Petitioners,v.Robert A. RIDDELL, District Director of Internal Revenue. No. 487. Argued March 3, 1966. Decided 21, George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioners. Jack S. Levin, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner1 was a participant in joint venture which acquired 45-acre parcel land, the intended use is somewhat dispute. Petitioner contends that venturers' intention to develop and operate an apartment project on land; respondent's position there 'dual purpose' developing property rental purposes or selling, whichever proved be more profitable. In any event, difficulties obtaining necessary financing were encountered, interior lots tract subdivided sold. The profit from those sales reported taxed as ordinary income. 2 venturers continued explore possibility commercially remaining exterior parcels. Additional frustrations form zoning restrictions encountered. These persuaded petitioner another desirability terminating venture; accordingly, they sold out their interests property. he entitled treat profits this last sale capital gains; respondent takes 'property held by taxpayer primarily customers course his trade business,'2 thus subject taxation 3 Court made following finding: 4 'The members (the venture), date 44.901 acres acquired, either sell it rental, depending upon appeared most realized had good purchase price-wise and, if unable obtain acceptable construction rezoning * would prerequisite commercial development, bulk so wouldn't get hurt. purpose selling during period venture) property.' 5 ruled failed establish not business, rejected petitioner's claim gain treatment derived property's resale. Appeals affirmed, 9 Cir., 347 F.2d 23. We granted certiorari (382 900, 244, 15 154) resolve conflict among courts appeals3 with regard meaning term 'primarily' used § 1221(1) Revenue Code 1954. 6 statute denies ment reaped business.' (Emphasis added.) urges us may 'primary' 'substantial' one. 7 As we have often said, 'the words statutes—including revenue acts—should interpreted where possible ordinary, everyday senses.' Crane v. Commissioner Revenue, 331 1, 6, 67 1047, 1051, 91 L.Ed. 1301. And see Hanover Bank 369 672, 687—688, 82 1080, 1088—1089, 8 187; Korell, 339 619, 627—628, 70 905, 909, 94 1108. Departure literal reading statutory language may, occasion, indicated relevant internal evidence itself order effect legislative purpose. See, e.g., Board Governors Federal Reserve System Agnew, 329 441, 446—448, 411, 413—415, 408. But such occasion. provision deal differentiate between 'profits losses arising operation business' one hand (Corn Products Refining Co. 350 46, 52, 76 20, 24, 100 29) realization appreciation value accrued over substantial time' other. (Commissioner Gillette Motor Transport, Inc., 364 130, 134, 80 1497, 1500, 1617.) A consistent hold that, 1221(1), means 'of first importance' 'principally.' Since below applied incorrect legal standard, do consider whether result supportable facts case correct been applied. believe, moreover, appropriate disposition remand Court, fresh fact-findings, addressed now construed it. Vacated remanded. 10 Mr. Justice BLACK affirm judgments Appeals. 11 WHITE took no part decision case. wife who filed return are petitioners, but simplicity referred throughout 'petitioner'. 1954, 26 U.S.C. 1221(1): 'For subtitle, 'capital asset' (whether connected business), does include— '(1) Compare Rollingwood Corp. 190 263, 266 (C.A.9th Cir.); American Can 317 604, 605 (C.A.2d Cir.), United States Bennett, 186 407, 410—411 (C.A.5th Municipal Bond 341 683, 688—689 (C.A.8th Cir.). Cf. Recordak States, 325 460, 463—464, 163 Ct.Cl. 294, 300—301.

Category: 11