Hamilton v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioner exchanged investment property and cash for investment property. Held, the payment of the cash did not take the transaction out of the provisions of section 112(b)(1) of the Revenue Act of 1928, and no gain or loss can be recognized.
1Opinion of the Court
*161OPINION.
Marquette:
The petitioner contends, first, that, when the New Hampshire Avenue property was abandoned as a residence and was placed in the hands of real estate agents for sale, at that time it became a transaction entered into for profit, and he cites Larkin v. Gage, 28 Fed. (2d) 18, in support of his position. We disagree. *162Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582, the use of property to produce revenue is characterized as a transaction entered into for profit, and until there is an appropriation of the property to rental purposes it retains its…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. LudeySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Heiner v. TindleSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- First Nat'l Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- W. H. Hartman Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- DeBlois v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
3Cited by12 opinions
- Alderson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Coupe v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Seiberling Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Phipps v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Alderson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.