TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elko Realty Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

ELKO REALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Elko Realty Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 260 F.2d 949 (3d Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 17, 1958
Docket
No. 12632
Judges
Maris, Kalodner, Hastie
Citations
260 F.2d 9492 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 61211958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5509

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The taxpayer asks us to review the decision of the Tax Court that it owed deficiencies in income tax for the years 1951,1952 and 1953. The deficiencies resulted from the disallowance by the Commissioner of losses sustained by two affiliated corporations, which losses had been set off by the taxpayer against its income in consolidated returns filed by it for the years in question. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determination that the principal purpose of the acquisition of the two corporations by the taxpayer was the avoidance of Federal income taxes, that the deduction of their losses from the taxpayer’s income was accordingly forbidden by section 129(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 129 (a), and that the-two corporations were in any event not. affiliates of the taxpayer privileged to-join in a consolidated return under section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 141 since the taxpayer’s acquisition of them served no business purpose, as distinguished from a tax-reducing purpose.

It will be seen that the question upon which this case turns is a purely factual one, namely, whether the taxpayer acquired the two corporations in question for a bona fide business purpose or, as the Tax Court found, principally in order to reduce or avoid income taxes on its own income. The evidence is discussed' and the facts are found in the opinion filed in the Tax Court by Judge Train, 29 T.C. 1012 , and will not be detailed here. We need merely say that our examination of the evidence satisfies us that the findings of the Tax Court have-substantial evidence to support them and cannot be held to be erroneous.

The decision of the Tax Court will be-affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 25 cases

View all citing references →
1959: 11960: 11961: 31962: 21963: 11964: 71965: 31969: 11971: 31974: 11976: 11987: 119592026peak 1964 · 7

Most recent

  1. U.S. Shelter Corp. v. United States13 Cl. Ct. 606 (Ct. Cl. 1987)
  2. Qualley v. Commissioner1976 T.C. Memo. 208
  3. Canaveral Int'l Corp. v. Commissioner61 T.C. No. 58
  4. Hall Paving Co. v. United States338 F. Supp. 670 (N.D. Ga. 1971)
  5. Scroll, Inc., a Florida Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue447 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1971)
  6. Arwood Corp. v. Commissioner1971 T.C. Memo. 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Elko Realty Co. v. Comm'r, 29 T.C. 1012 (Tax Ct. 1958) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list