Legal Opinion

Hendler v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided December 30, 1936No. 5419PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Apart from the literal meaning of the section, the assumption of liabilities in this case was not within the substantial import of the statute. In financial substance Hendler merely exchanged its equity in its property for shares of stock in the Borden Company which represented only the equity therein, and which pro tanto were diminished in value by the Hendler liabilities assumed by Borden. Neither in form nor substance did Hendler receive any “other property or money” by Borden’s assumption of Hendler’s liabilities.

Counsel for the Government also contends the item of $534,297.40, even if…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Old Colony Trust Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. United States v. Kirby Lumber CoSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Lewis v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. United States v. PhellisSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. HendlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Focht v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
  3. González Padín Co. v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947
  4. Focht v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
  5. González Padín Co. v. Tax Court of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API