From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leeds and Lippincott Company v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 5, 1960
276 F.2d 927 (3d Cir. 1960)

Opinion

No. 13095.

Argued March 24, 1960.

Decided April 5, 1960.

Converse Murdoch, Philadelphia, Pa. (Kenneth W. Gemmill, Anthony L. Bartolini, Philadelphia, Pa., James N. Butler, Atlantic City, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Charles B.E. Freeman, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Chester A. Weidenburner, U.S. Atty., Frank J. Ferry, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.


Judge Madden in the District Court held that the transfer of properties and lease back arrangement, here involved, between the taxpayer and the insurance company, was in substance a mortgage, not a sale and therefore taxpayer was not entitled to receive credit for a capital loss.

Under the particular facts and the law of the case (see Helvering v. F. R. Lazarus Co., 1939, 308 U.S. 252, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226) we must agree.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Leeds and Lippincott Company v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 5, 1960
276 F.2d 927 (3d Cir. 1960)
Case details for

Leeds and Lippincott Company v. United States

Case Details

Full title:LEEDS AND LIPPINCOTT COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Apr 5, 1960

Citations

276 F.2d 927 (3d Cir. 1960)

Citing Cases

Sun Oil Co. v. C. I. R

In the instant case, the actual conveyance to the Trust of title to the properties and the fair market value…

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

Section 520 is concerned with reliquidations in the interest of the importer only, and quite obviously is…