Elko Realty Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

260 F.2d 949, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6121, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5509
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1958
Docket12632
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 260 F.2d 949 (Elko Realty Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elko Realty Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 260 F.2d 949, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6121, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5509 (3d Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The taxpayer asks us to review the decision of the Tax Court that it owed deficiencies in income tax for the years 1951,1952 and 1953. The deficiencies resulted from the disallowance by the Commissioner of losses sustained by two affiliated corporations, which losses had been set off by the taxpayer against its income in consolidated returns filed by it for the years in question. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determination that the principal purpose of the acquisition of the two corporations by the taxpayer was the avoidance of Federal income taxes, that the deduction of their losses from the taxpayer’s income was accordingly forbidden by section 129(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 129(a), and that the-two corporations were in any event not. affiliates of the taxpayer privileged to-join in a consolidated return under section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 141 since the taxpayer’s acquisition of them served no business purpose, as distinguished from a tax-reducing purpose.

It will be seen that the question upon which this case turns is a purely factual one, namely, whether the taxpayer acquired the two corporations in question for a bona fide business purpose or, as the Tax Court found, principally in order to reduce or avoid income taxes on its own income. The evidence is discussed' and the facts are found in the opinion filed in the Tax Court by Judge Train, 29 T.C. 1012, and will not be detailed here. We need merely say that our examination of the evidence satisfies us that the findings of the Tax Court have-substantial evidence to support them and cannot be held to be erroneous.

The decision of the Tax Court will be-affirmed.

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

Related

U.S. Shelter Corp. v. United States
13 Cl. Ct. 606 (Court of Claims, 1987)
Qualley v. Commissioner
1976 T.C. Memo. 208 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Canaveral Int'l Corp. v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 58 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Hall Paving Co. v. United States
338 F. Supp. 670 (N.D. Georgia, 1971)
Arwood Corp. v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Atlas Storage Co. v. United States
306 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. West Virginia, 1969)
Clarksdale Rubber Co. v. Commissioner
45 T.C. 234 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Briar Homes Corporation v. United States
245 F. Supp. 646 (D. Maryland, 1965)
Book Production Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner
1965 T.C. Memo. 65 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Cromwell Corp. v. Commissioner
43 T.C. 313 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Barclay Co. v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 279 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Luke v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 176 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Naeter Bros. Pub. Co. v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 1 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
O'Donnell v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 38 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Esrenco Truck Co. v. Commissioner
1963 T.C. Memo. 72 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Zanesville Inv. Co. v. Commissioner
38 T.C. 406 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)
R. P. Collins & Co., Inc. v. United States
303 F.2d 142 (First Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 F.2d 949, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6121, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elko-realty-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1958.