James E. Caldwell & Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

James E. Caldwell & Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

234 F.2d 660, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1485, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1956

Docket19-6233

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 660 (James E. Caldwell & 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

James E. Caldwell & Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 234 F.2d 660, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1485, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303 (6th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. At issue in that court were three essentially unrelated questions: “1. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner could not capitalize the cost of settling a suit which represented a cloud on its title to certain real property. 2. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner could not deduct a payment in satisfaction of its share of a tort judgment and related attorney’s fees. 3. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner realized gain to the extent of the full sale price of certain stock which was acquired by gift from a donor whose basis is unknown.”

Petitioner contends that the Tax Court was in error in answering all three of these questions affirmatively and in entering its decision for the respondent Commissioner. The decision was reviewed by the court, four judges dissenting upon all questions at issue. 1955, 24 T.C. 597.

The facts, which are undisputed, are clearly set out in the Tax Court’s findings. The legal issues also received *661 thorough consideration and discussion at the hands of both the majority and dissenting members of that court. Under these circumstances, a paraphrased recapitulation here would serve little purpose.

We are persuaded that the decision of the Tax Court must be reversed for the reasons expressed in Judge Bruce’s dissenting opinion and upon the authorities therein cited. With regard to the third issue, since the basis of National Union Stock Yards, Inc., stock determined by the Commissioner was clearly arbitrary, the case is remanded to give both parties an opportunity to present further evidence in order to determine the correct basis if possible. In the event that insufficient probative evidence upon this issue is adduced, then neither gain not loss can be allowed for the reasons discussed in Judge Bruce’s dissenting opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. At issue in that court were three essentially unrelated questions: “1. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner could not capitalize the cost of settling a suit which represented a cloud on its title to certain real property. 2. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner could not deduct a payment in satisfaction of its share of a tort judgment and related attorney’s fees. 3. Whether the Commissioner correctly determined that petitioner realized gain to the extent of the full sale price of certain stock which was acquired by gift from a donor whose basis is unknown.”

Petitioner contends that the Tax Court was in error in answering all three of these questions affirmatively and in entering its decision for the respondent Commissioner. The decision was reviewed by the court, four judges dissenting upon all questions at issue. 1955, 24 T.C. 597.

The facts, which are undisputed, are clearly set out in the Tax Court’s findings. The legal issues also received *661 thorough consideration and discussion at the hands of both the majority and dissenting members of that court. Under these circumstances, a paraphrased recapitulation here would serve little purpose.

We are persuaded that the decision of the Tax Court must be reversed for the reasons expressed in Judge Bruce’s dissenting opinion and upon the authorities therein cited. With regard to the third issue, since the basis of National Union Stock Yards, Inc., stock determined by the Commissioner was clearly arbitrary, the case is remanded to give both parties an opportunity to present further evidence in order to determine the correct basis if possible. In the event that insufficient probative evidence upon this issue is adduced, then neither gain not loss can be allowed for the reasons discussed in Judge Bruce’s dissenting opinion.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 660, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1485, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-caldwell-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack