Southern Dredging Corp. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, petitioners were not incorporated for the principal purpose of evasion or avoidance of Federal income tax, within the purview of sec. 269, by securing the benefit of the surtax exemption.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
The issues presented for our decision are whether all or any of the petitioners were incorporated for the principal purpose of evasion or avoidance of Federal income tax, within the purview of section 269, by securing the benefit of the surtax exemption.
Section 11(d) provides an exemption of $25,000 in imposing the surtax on the taxable income of a corporation. The right to this exemption is sometimes qualified in the application of section 269(a), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
SEO. 269. ACQUISITIONS MADE TO EVADE OR. AVOID INCOME TAX.(a) In GENERAL. — If—(1) any person…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- James Realty Company, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
- Commodores Point Terminal Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Kessmar Construction Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Sno-Frost, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Bay Sound Transportation Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Plains Petroleum Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1999
- Bickes-Wilbert Burial Vault Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- Southern Dredging Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Woolley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991