Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Martin Weiner and Tillie Weiner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14151 (1963)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 14151 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 22, 1963
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 316 F.2d 473 63-1 USTC P 9423 Martin WEINER and Tillie Weiner, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. No. 14151. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued March 4, 1963. Decided April 22, 1963. Marvin Lyons, New York City (James A. Levitan, Benjamin Nadel, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners. Crombie J. D. Garrett, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Attorneys, Dept.
More

316 F.2d 473

63-1 USTC P 9423

Martin WEINER and Tillie Weiner, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 14151.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 4, 1963.
Decided April 22, 1963.

Marvin Lyons, New York City (James A. Levitan, Benjamin Nadel, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.

Crombie J. D. Garrett, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

We here review an unreported decision of the Tax Court of the United States. The substance of the issue presented is whether the Tax Court erred in holding that gain on the disposition of the Regency Textiles, Inc. note was taxable as ordinary income or was entitled to treatment as a long-term capital gain under Section 1222(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. 1222(3). The essence of the question is whether there was or was not a bona fide sale or exchange of the note which requires recognition for tax purposes. The Tax Court, in a well reasoned opinion by Judge Atkins, answered this question in the negative and concluded therefore that the gain was taxable as ordinary income. Upon review of the facts and of the law we can perceive no error in the decision of the Tax Court. Accordingly, it will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer