Estate of Marshall v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Opper, Judge:
When the petitioner sold his stock in Johnson & Higgins as he was required to do by his underlying contract, measurement of the purchase price according to the size of the dividends to be declared for a specific future period seems to us to have been merely fortuitous. Petitioner parted with his stock in all respects as completely as though he had sold it on any other terms; what he was receiving was the purchase price and not dividends on stock, and the transaction would have been no different if the purchase price had been a specified amount in lieu of being indefinite.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burnet v. LoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- McAllister v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Bell's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Nordberg Mfg. Co. v. KuhlCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ayrton Metal Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Grinnell Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- Stolz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- Townsend v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Prentis v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.