Young v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fourth Circuit

Young v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

208 F.2d 795, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 33, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4071

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1953

Docket6674

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 208 F.2d 795 (Young v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 208 F.2d 795, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 33, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4071 (4th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court affirming a determination by the Commissioner of a deficiency in income tax for the year 1945 and *796 imposing a five per cent negligence penalty. The principal question involved arises under section 115(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., and concerns the treatment to be accorded assets distributed in liquidation of a corporation to one of its stockholders. The Tax Court correctly held that the difference between taxpayer’s basis for his capital stock, which was zero, and the fair market value of the property received by him in liquidation was to be treated as capital gain. Hellmich v. Heilman, 276 U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 72 L.Ed. 544. Other questions involving the statute of limitations and the assessment of the negligence penalty are entirely without merit.

Affirmed.

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 affirming a determination by the Commissioner of a deficiency in income tax for the year 1945 and *796 imposing a five per cent negligence penalty. The principal question involved arises under section 115(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., and concerns the treatment to be accorded assets distributed in liquidation of a corporation to one of its stockholders. The Tax Court correctly held that the difference between taxpayer’s basis for his capital stock, which was zero, and the fair market value of the property received by him in liquidation was to be treated as capital gain. Hellmich v. Heilman, 276 U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 72 L.Ed. 544. Other questions involving the statute of limitations and the assessment of the negligence penalty are entirely without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F.2d 795, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 33, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca4-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack