# Fahs v. Crawford

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 25, 1947 · 161 F.2d 315

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9653472

## Case

- **Full name:** FAHS v. CRAWFORD Et Ux.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 25, 1947
- **Citations:** 161 F.2d 315; 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1228; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lee
- **Judges:** Sibley, Lee, Strum
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9653472

## Opinion text

LEE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Commander was a real estate broker and developer, as stated in the majority opinion. Under his contract with the taxpayer, Commander developed and sold, and interested other building contractors in developing and selling, homes in the subdivision financed by FHA-insured mortgages. The taxpayer was paid only the appraised value of the lots ’on which dwellings and outhouses were located. The business consisted of improving property in the subdivision, then selling-the improved property under the FHA plan. Commander and the other building contractors were in that business, not the taxpayer. Commander under his contract had the control of the lots: he could take over one or all of the lots, separately or collectively. He and the contractors profited or lost by the activities. Beyond the appraised value of the naked lot forming part of the home-site sold, the taxpayer was without interest. Under these circumstances, the property held by the taxpayer was not primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9653472. Public record. Not legal advice.