Karns Prime & Fancy Food, Ltd. v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
The distinction between a loan and an advance payment for the purpose of whether the funds received are to be treated as “income” subject to federal income tax is not always apparent on the face of the documents. Instead, the issue is to be determined after an examination of “all the facts and circumstances.” Comm’r v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. 203, 207, 110 S.Ct. 589, 107 L.Ed.2d 591 (1990) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The applicable law is not uncertain. It is “settled that receipt of a loan is not income to the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Automobile Club of Mich. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Knetsch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Commissioner v. TuftsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Schulde v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2012
- Karns Prime & Fancy Food, Ltd. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Koziej v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2010