Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Transport Products Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 12889 (1956)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 12889 Visitors: 37
Filed: Dec. 26, 1956
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 239 F.2d 859 57-1 USTC P 9279 TRANSPORT PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. No. 12889. United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. Dec. 26, 1956. Charles F. Wood and A. Robert Doll, Greenebaum, Barnett & Carroll, Louisville, Ky., for petitioner. Charles K. Rice, John Potts Barnes, Claude R. Marshall, Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum and Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Th
More

239 F.2d 859

57-1 USTC P 9279

TRANSPORT PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 12889.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 26, 1956.

Charles F. Wood and A. Robert Doll, Greenebaum, Barnett & Carroll, Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.

Charles K. Rice, John Potts Barnes, Claude R. Marshall, Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum and Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The tax court sustained the decision of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his determination that the transaction here involved, by which the assets acquired by the petitioner-corporation from another corporation solely in exchange for voting stock, was a tax-free exchange under sections 112(b)(4) and 112(g)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1939, 26 U.S.C.A., with the result that the basis to the petitioner-corporation of the assets acquired is the same as the basis of the assets in the hands of the other corporation, pursuant to section 113(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1939, 26 U.S.C.A.

2

We are of opinion that, upon the findings of fact of the tax court which were largely stipulated and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the tax court, its decision should be and the same is hereby ordered to 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