Henry Kinney and Anita Kinney v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Henry Kinney and Anita Kinney v. United States

358 F.2d 738, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 699, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6699

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 29, 1966·No. 21743·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidentiary facts from which this income tax controversy arises are not in dispute and are set forth in the opinion of the district court. Kinney v. United States, D.C.W.D.La.1964, 228 F.Supp. 656. The question is whether the income tax liability resulting from a sale and transfer of the taxpayer’s interest in the assets of a partnership to his co-partner will be less when accomplished, as it was, by a series of nearly simultaneous and closely related steps, than such tax consequences would be if the sale and transfer had been made by a single act.

The district court, after a consideration of all of the evidence, found that the transaction was, in essence, a total sale of the taxpayer’s total interest in the partnership. The district court concluded that the transaction was to be considered in its entirety rather than by fragmenting it into its various segments. It held that the facts were such as required the application of the principle that substance and not form will control in determining the tax incidents of a transaction. The determinations of the district court are not shown to be erroneous. Cf. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981; United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co., 338 U.S. 451, 70 S.Ct. 280, 94 L.Ed. 251. The judgment of the district court, denying recovery to the taxpayer, will be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidentiary facts from which this income tax controversy arises are not in dispute and are set forth in the opinion of the district court. Kinney v. United States, D.C.W.D.La.1964, 228 F.Supp. 656. The question is whether the income tax liability resulting from a sale and transfer of the taxpayer’s interest in the assets of a partnership to his co-partner will be less when accomplished, as it was, by a series of nearly simultaneous and closely related steps, than such tax consequences would be if the sale and transfer had been made by a single act.

The district court, after a consideration of all of the evidence, found that the transaction was, in essence, a total sale of the taxpayer’s total interest in the partnership. The district court concluded that the transaction was to be considered in its entirety rather than by fragmenting it into its various segments. It held that the facts were such as required the application of the principle that substance and not form will control in determining the tax incidents of a transaction. The determinations of the district court are not shown to be erroneous. Cf. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981; United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co., 338 U.S. 451, 70 S.Ct. 280, 94 L.Ed. 251. The judgment of the district court, denying recovery to the taxpayer, will be

Affirmed.

Henry Kinney and Anita Kinney v. United States, 358 F.2d 738, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 699, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6699 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

358 F.2d 738 (Henry Kinney and Anita Kinney v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related