Winter Holding Corp. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The property in question having been held for investment, no loss is to be recognized on its exchange for another property, together with cash paid by petitioner and a purchase money mortgage assumed by it.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Van Fossan:
The respondent determined that the petitioner was a holding or investment company and not a dealer in real estate. Accordingly, he held that no loss was deductible on a property known as 32 Union Square when exchanged for other property, under section 112 (e) of the Revenue Act of 1928.1 He also dis*1186allowed as an expense the commission paid on the sale of 1035 Fifth Avenue and held that it should be used to reduce the amount of profit in computing the percentage of profit on the installment sale. As a consequence the respondent determined a deficiency of $10,245.98 for the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Burkhard Inv. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Ramey Inv. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Burkhard Inv. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1938
- Winter Holding Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935