Minnesota Tea Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The acquisition by one corporation of substantially all the properties of another corporation is not, of itself, a statutory reorganization under section 112(i)(1), Revenue Act of 1928. Such acquisition, to come within section 112(i)(1)(A), must be part of a strict merger or consolidation or of something which partakes of or resembles a merger or consolidation and involves a continuance of essentially the same interests through modified corporate form. 2. In determining…
Read the full summary
1. The acquisition by one corporation of substantially all the properties of another corporation is not, of itself, a statutory reorganization under section 112(i)(1), Revenue Act of 1928. Such acquisition, to come within section 112(i)(1)(A), must be part of a strict merger or consolidation or of something which partakes of or resembles a merger or consolidation and involves a continuance of essentially the same interests through modified corporate form. 2. In determining whether a statutory reorganization exists, the definition of section 112(i)(1) must be read in its entirety and part A…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Sternhagen :
The respondent determined deficiencies in the income taxes of the petitioners as follows: Minnesota Tea Co., $11,587.64 for the period January 1 to August 24, 1928; E. C. Peterson, $15,982.31 for 1928; A. F. Peterson, $646.66 for 1928; and L. T. Peterson, $15,974.76 for 1928. There is no explanation for the use of a short tax period for the Minnesota Tea Co., although it is stated in the notice of deficiency of January 26, 1931, that “ it is still a going concern.” The facts are stipulated, and findings are unnecessary.
*592The Minnesota Tea Co., engaged in the retail grocery…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- First Nat'l Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Green v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
3Cited by16 opinions
- Schuh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
- Burns v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Henritze v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- J. M. Harrison, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Ballwood Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.