Rodney v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

145 F.2d 692, 33 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 115, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2611
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 16, 1944·No. 36·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We think that the Tax Court cor- ' rectly held that the assumption by taxpayer on June 17, 1938, of the liabilities of Gladstone in exchange for Gladstone’s assets was a capital transaction in the nature of consideration for the receipt of the assets of Gladstone, and that interest paid in that year, which had accrued before such purchase, was not “interest” within the meaning of § 23(b). Nor do we think that the payment of $32,569.33 representing interest accrued prior to June 17, 1938, can be regarded as the declaration of a dividend by taxpayer to Mrs. Scott. It constituted the payment of a debt assumed by taxpayer which it was obligated to pay and was not a voluntary distribution by its board of directors.

Affirmed.

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

Rodney v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 145 F.2d 692, 33 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 115, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2611 (2d Cir. 1944).

145 F.2d 692 (Rodney v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. Commissioner
66 T.C. 1024 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Family Group, Inc. v. Commissioner
59 T.C. 660 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
M. Buten & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner
1972 T.C. Memo. 44 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)