Alper v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Alper v. District of Columbia

346 F.2d 845

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1965

DocketNos. 18539-18543

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 346 F.2d 845 (Alper v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alper v. District of Columbia, 346 F.2d 845 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These appeals, although not consolidated with those decided this day sub nomine Verkouteren, et al. v. District of Columbia, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, 346 F.2d 842 were heard on the same calendar. Although they involve the distribution in a corporate liquidation of a leasehold interest in real property as distinct from shares of stock, they present the same situation with respect to the disregard by the Tax Court of the capital gains issue presented to it by the parties upon a stipulation that such leasehold was disposed of by the appellant-stockholders, and the decision by the Tax Court to support the asserted deficiencies by a finding contrary to the stipulation. We reverse for the same reasons stated in Verkouteren, and remand for the same purpose.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

These appeals, although not consolidated with those decided this day sub nomine Verkouteren, et al. v. District of Columbia, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, 346 F.2d 842 were heard on the same calendar. Although they involve the distribution in a corporate liquidation of a leasehold interest in real property as distinct from shares of stock, they present the same situation with respect to the disregard by the Tax Court of the capital gains issue presented to it by the parties upon a stipulation that such leasehold was disposed of by the appellant-stockholders, and the decision by the Tax Court to support the asserted deficiencies by a finding contrary to the stipulation. We reverse for the same reasons stated in Verkouteren, and remand for the same purpose.

It is so ordered.

John H. Verkouteren v. District of Columbia, Herman Oshinsky v. District of Columbia, Mary Oshinsky, William Oshinsky and Clara Sennet, Executors of the Estate of Charles Oshinsky, Deceased v. District of Columbia, William Oshinsky v. District of Columbia, Herman Fenichel v. District of Columbia, Bernard Margolius and Lilyan Margolius v. District of Columbia

433 F.2d 461 (D.C. Circuit, 1971)

Verkouteren v. District of Columbia

433 F.2d 461 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)

Beatrice W. Oppenheimer v. District of Columbia

363 F.2d 708 (D.C. Circuit, 1966)

Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc. v. District of Columbia

349 F.2d 179 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)

Morton O. Alper v. District of Columbia, Albert Small v. District of Columbia, Albert Small v. District of Columbia, David L. Stern v. District of Columbia, Marie E. Stern v. District of Columbia

346 F.2d 845 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)