Perlin v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Ps, professional commodity dealers or persons regularly engaged in investing in regulated futures contracts, entered four commodity straddle transactions. Held, the transactions were not shams, devoid of the requisite economic substance. Held, further, the transactions satisfied the "entered into for profit" requirement of sec. 108 of the Tax Reform Act of 1984.
1Opinion of the Court
HORNER, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal income taxes against petitioners Paul J. Perlin, Henry E. Hershey, and Ellen K. Hershey (hereinafter collectively referred to as petitioners) as follows:
Petitioner(s) Docket No. TYE Dec. 31-Deficiency
Paul J. Perlin 26381-82 20634-83 20634-83 1978 1979 1980 2$498,161 20,398 687,033
Henry E. Hershey and Ellen K. Hershey 20634-83 20634-83 1979 1980 152,245 646,979
By amended answers filed October 1, 1984, in docket Nos. 26381-82 and 209634-83, respondent claimed additional deficiencies in unspecified amounts against petitioners pursuant…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Welch v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Commissioner v. South Texas Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Higgins v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. CorrellSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Glass v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- Katz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- De Martino v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Cook v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- King v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.