Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Wash Sales -- Securities -- Substantially Identical -- Commodity Futures -- Section 118. -- Contracts for the delivery of corn for a stated price at a stated future time are not securities within the meaning of section 118 and one such contract is not substantially identical with another where the date for delivery is different and the contract price and the other contracting party may be different.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock, Judge:
The parties have argued two points. One is whether contracts for the future delivery of corn are to be treated as capital assets in the hands of the petitioner so that gains or losses thereon are capital gains or losses, and the other is whether the wash sales provisions of section 118 apply to those transactions. The petitioner has not accounted for or reported its gains and losses from futures transactions as capital gains and losses but, on the contrary, treated the 1910 gains as a reduction in the cost of raw materials and the losses in prior years as an addition to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Rosenthal v. BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
3Cited by19 opinions
- Smith v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Sicanoff Vegetable Oil Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Nelson Weaver Realty Company, and Nelson Weaver Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Gantner v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Hoover Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.