Legal Opinion · Dissent

David v. MacNaughton and Virginia R. MacNaughton v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided December 29, 1989No. 88-5359Published

1DissentSiler, District Judge

I concur with that part of the majority opinion set out in II.A., that Section 88 of the Internal Revenue Code applies to the stock transaction involved, but I respectfully dissent in other respects.

Plaintiff had the burden of proof here. See Coleman v. United States, 704 F.2d 326 (6th Cir.1983). However, he met that burden by uncontradicted evidence on several crucial issues. For that reason, I believe that as a matter of law, plaintiffs stock was transferable and not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture prior to 1981. Therefore, under Section 83, he should have been assessed for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  2. United States v. (Under Seal)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  3. United States v. John M. BeelerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
  4. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
  5. United States v. William Darryl BlakemoreCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API