Weil v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Respondent's determination, in accordance with his regulations, that petitioners' corporation was "collapsible" under section 117 (m), I. R. C. 1939, and that gain realized in 1950 on sale of its stock is ordinary income, held, on the facts, to have been properly made where the intention to sell the stock was formed prior to completion of the construction by the corporation.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Opper, Judge:
Two principal controversies must be disposed of in determining here whether respondent was correct in applying to the gain realized by petitioners the provisions of section 117 (m), 1939 Code, because the corporation of which they sold the stock was “collapsible.”2
Petitioners first contend that respondent’s regulations, which require that the intention to collapse the corporation must occur during “construction,” 3 are an invalid and unenforcible interpretation of the statute. The main thrust of petitioners’ position appears to be that the intention must exist at the time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- The Smoot Sand & Gravel Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
- Burge v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
3Cited by8 opinions
- Arthur Glickman Herman Glickman and Ruth Glickman and Aaron Glickmand and Freda Glickman v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Mintz v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Shilowitz v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1963
- Mintz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Max Mintz and Hilda Mintz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Louis Mintz and Maybelle Mintz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Morris Mintz and Evelyn Mintz v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.