Shanis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Shanis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

213 F.2d 151

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1954

DocketNos. 11286, 11287

StatusPublished

This text of 213 F.2d 151 (Shanis 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

Shanis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 213 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The first question presented is whether petitioners’ partnership on the settlement of sell and buy contracts of “when issued” securities realized a net short-term capital gain as found by the Tax Court or a long-term capital gain and a short-term capital loss as urged by petitioners

We find ample factual basis in the record for the Tax Court’s conclusion that what took place on the settlement date was a sa]e ancj exchange not of the contract rights but of the securities involved which resulted in a short-term capital transaction.

The second question concerns the re-computations of taxpayers deficiencies. We think that these were properly calculated under Rule 50 of the rules of that court. They were the direct consequence „ ,, m ^ , of the Tax Court s findings and opinion , , and made necessary by the differences between those findings and opinion and the earlier determination by the Corn-missioner. They did not constitute new issues.

The decisions of the Tax Court, 19 T.C. 641, will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The first question presented is whether petitioners’ partnership on the settlement of sell and buy contracts of “when issued” securities realized a net short-term capital gain as found by the Tax Court or a long-term capital gain and a short-term capital loss as urged by petitioners

We find ample factual basis in the record for the Tax Court’s conclusion that what took place on the settlement date was a sa]e ancj exchange not of the contract rights but of the securities involved which resulted in a short-term capital transaction.

The second question concerns the re-computations of taxpayers deficiencies. We think that these were properly calculated under Rule 50 of the rules of that court. They were the direct consequence „ ,, m ^ , of the Tax Court s findings and opinion , , and made necessary by the differences between those findings and opinion and the earlier determination by the Corn-missioner. They did not constitute new issues.

The decisions of the Tax Court, 19 T.C. 641, will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F.2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanis-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1954.