Legal Opinion
Insurance & Title Guarantee Co. v. Com'r of Internal Revenue
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 16, 1929No. 9PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We think that the difference in value between the shares and the cost of the property conveyed was income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. It is, of course, true that every change-of form in a security is not treated as new property, as was once for all held in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570, and the question of just how much is enough is indeed tangled. But we see no reason here to rely °on the distinction between Marr v. U. S., 268 U. S. 536, 45 S. Ct. 575, 69 L. Ed. 1079, and Weiss v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eisner v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Eisner, Internal Revenue Collector v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- United States v. PhellisSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Weiss v. StearnSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Marr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Helvering v. Cement Investors, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Janeway v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Hartwell Mills v. RoseCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1932
- Emerald Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Gamble v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.