Legal Opinion
Recordak Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided December 13, 1963No. 455-59PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, Judge
In this tax refund suit, we are asked to hold that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue improperly denied Re-cordak Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eastman Kodak, capital gains treatment on the sale of certain microfilming equipment in 1954,1955, and 1956. The critical question, once again, is whether this property was “held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of * * * [its] trade or business.” Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1231.
Plaintiff has long been engaged in renting microfilming equipment on a month-to-month basis; it has also serviced the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Corn Products Refining Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Rollingwood Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Bohannon v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Philber Equipment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- American Can Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Can CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Garrett v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Malat v. RiddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Honeywell, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- John Nadalin and Mary Nadalin v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- Van Heusden v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Armco Steel Corporation v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1966
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.