Filed: Mar. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2275 _ NEAL CRISPIN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, _ On Appeal from the United States Tax Court (No. 28980-07) Judge: Hon. Diane L. Kroupa _ Argued January 8, 2013 Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 19, 2013) _ George W. Connelly [ARGUED] Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Johnson & Williams 1200 Smith Street 1400 Citicorp Houston, TX 77002 Counsel for Appellant Gary R. Allen
Summary: PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2275 _ NEAL CRISPIN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, _ On Appeal from the United States Tax Court (No. 28980-07) Judge: Hon. Diane L. Kroupa _ Argued January 8, 2013 Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 19, 2013) _ George W. Connelly [ARGUED] Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Johnson & Williams 1200 Smith Street 1400 Citicorp Houston, TX 77002 Counsel for Appellant Gary R. Allen T..
More
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-2275
_____________
NEAL CRISPIN,
Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
_______________
On Appeal from the United States Tax Court
(No. 28980-07)
Judge: Hon. Diane L. Kroupa
_______________
Argued
January 8, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit
Judges.
(Filed: March 19, 2013)
_______________
George W. Connelly [ARGUED]
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Johnson & Williams
1200 Smith Street
1400 Citicorp
Houston, TX 77002
Counsel for Appellant
Gary R. Allen
Tamara W. Ashford
Richard Farber
Judith A. Hagley [ARGUED]
Gilbert S. Rothenberg
United States Department of Justice
Tax Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
_______________
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
IT IS NOW ORDERED that the above-captioned
opinion be amended as follows:
Footnote 3 shall now read:
The Commissioner contends that that step in the
CARDS transaction “is predicated on an invalid
application of the ... basis provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code.” (Appellee’s Br. at 4.)
2
Specifically, I.R.C. § 1012 provides that a
taxpayer’s basis in property is generally equal
to the purchase price paid by the taxpayer. That
purchase price includes the amount of the
seller’s liabilities assumed by the taxpayer as
part of the purchase, on the assumption that the
taxpayer will eventually repay those liabilities.
See Comm’r v. Tufts,
461 U.S. 300, 308-09
(1983). But in a CARDS transaction, the
Commissioner argues, the taxpayer and the
foreign borrower agree that the taxpayer will
repay only the portion of the loan equal to the
amount of currency the taxpayer actually
purchases.
/s/ Kent A. Jordan
Circuit Judge
DATED: March 19, 2013
3