Frischkorn Development Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Frischkorn Development Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

88 F.2d 1009, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 244, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1937

Docket7139

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 88 F.2d 1009 (Frischkorn Development Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frischkorn Development Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 88 F.2d 1009, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 244, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319 (6th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Circuit Judge.

The court being of opinion that it is a question of fact whether the promissory note and the shares of stock received by the Frischkorn Homes Company as consideration for the transfer of all of its assets to the petitioner had a readily realizable market value within the meaning of section 202 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 229; and it appearing that it is a question of fact whether the taxpayer has expended all of the money received for real property taken in condemnation proceedings in the purchase of other property similar and related in use [section 203 (b) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 256] ; and there being substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board of Tax Appeals [Old Mission Portland Cement Co. v. Helvering, Commissioner, 293 U.S. 289, 294, 55 S.Ct. 158, 79 L.Ed. 649; Helvering, Commissioner, v. Rankin, Extr., 295 U.S. 123, 131, 55 S.Ct. 732, 79 L.Ed. 1343; Tracy v. Commissioner, 53 F.(2d) 575 (C.C.A.6)];

The order of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. 30 B.T.A. 8.

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

ALLEN, Circuit Judge.

The court being of opinion that it is a question of fact whether the promissory note and the shares of stock received by the Frischkorn Homes Company as consideration for the transfer of all of its assets to the petitioner had a readily realizable market value within the meaning of section 202 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 229; and it appearing that it is a question of fact whether the taxpayer has expended all of the money received for real property taken in condemnation proceedings in the purchase of other property similar and related in use [section 203 (b) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 256] ; and there being substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board of Tax Appeals [Old Mission Portland Cement Co. v. Helvering, Commissioner, 293 U.S. 289, 294, 55 S.Ct. 158, 79 L.Ed. 649; Helvering, Commissioner, v. Rankin, Extr., 295 U.S. 123, 131, 55 S.Ct. 732, 79 L.Ed. 1343; Tracy v. Commissioner, 53 F.(2d) 575 (C.C.A.6)];

The order of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. 30 B.T.A. 8.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 1009, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 244, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frischkorn-development-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack