Main v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

7 Citing cases

  1. Elward v. United States

    420 F. Supp. 840 (N.D. Ill. 1976)

    Under this concept where an apportionment or allocation of basis or fair market value among a group of securities such as stocks and bonds cannot be established, the taxpayer is entitled to recoup his original investment before reporting any taxable gain. Hamilton & Main, Inc. v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 878, 883 (1956); United Mercantile Agencies, Inc. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 1105 (1955); remanded sub nom. Drybrough v. Commissioner, 238 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1956); 3A Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, s 21.32.

  2. Billy Rose's Diamond Horseshoe, Inc. v. United States

    322 F. Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    Section 61(a)(3). I find Hamilton Main, Inc., 25 T.C. 878 (1956) entirely inapposite. Here, there was no sale of the leased premises and assignment of the right of restoration under the lease to the purchaser.

  3. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. United States

    192 F. Supp. 615 (W.D. Wash. 1961)

    mmissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 1955, 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483; Leh v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 489; Clover v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1944, 143 F.2d 570; Ullman v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 305; Terminal Steamship Co. v. Commissioner, 1960, 34 T.C. No. 94. This court finds nothing persuasive to the contrary in the decisions relied on by plaintiff: Hort v. Commissioner, 1941, 313 U.S. 28, 61 S.Ct. 757, 85 L.Ed. 1168; Metropolitan Building Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1960, 282 F.2d 592; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ray, 5 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 390; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McCue Bros. & Drummond, Inc., 2 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 752; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Golonsky, 3 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 72; Warren v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 996; Anton L. Trunk, 1959, 32 T.C. 1127; Hamilton & Main, Inc., 1956, 25 T.C. 878; Inaja Land Co., Ltd., 1947, 9 T.C. 727.         However designated by the parties thereto and whatever some of the legal characteristics therof, the transactions under consideration by essential nature are not within the strictly limited category specified by statute for capital gain treatment in the computation of income tax.

  4. Boston Fish Mkt. Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    57 T.C. 884 (U.S.T.C. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, both before and after the Bruun case and the responsive legislation thereto in the Revenue Act of 1942, similar ‘cash’ payments have generally been regarded as having been received in sale or exchange of the unrestored property. Cf. Washington Fireproof Building Co., 31 B.T.A. 824, 827-828 (Murdock, J., concurring); Guy L. Waggoner, 15 T.C. 496, 502-503 (quoting and approving Judge Murdock's concurring opinion in Washington Fireproof Building Co., 31 B.T.A.at 827-828); Hamilton & Main, Inc., 25 T.C. 878, 882. Any recovery of cash in excess of the basis of such property would therefore constitute taxable income to the lessor.

  5. Sirbo Holdings, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    57 T.C. 530 (U.S.T.C. 1972)   Cited 7 times

    On the contrary, it clearly appears that the petitioner was willing to continue to rent the theater to CBS for use as a television studio. The case of Hamilton & Main, Inc., 25 T.C. 878, similarly is inapplicable. In that case, the taxpayer purchased the property from the lessor and prior owner upon the expiration of the lessee's tenancy.

  6. Madison Fund, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    43 T.C. 215 (U.S.T.C. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    William T. Piper, 5 T.C. 1104; Inaja Land Co., Ltd., 9 T.C. 727; United Mercantile Agencies, Inc., 23 T.C. 1105, remanded on another issue sub nom. Drybrough v. Commissioner, (C.A. 6) 238 F.2d 735; and Hamilton & Maine, Inc., 25 T.C. 878. In the Perrine and Overfield-Weigle suits claims were made that Pennsylvania was liable for losses occasioned by the payment of excessive prices for the securities and also for losses sustained as the result of the petitioner's continued holding of such securities pursuant to the domination of petitioner by Pennsylvania.

  7. Smith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    31 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    The ‘reasonable allowance’ means one based on the expected useful life of the depreciable asset in the light of facts known or reasonably ascertainable at the end of the current taxable year, Leonard Refineries, In., 11 T.C. 1000, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, the determination of the respondent will be sustained. Hamilton & Main, Inc., 25 T.C. 878. Respondent did not use the 10-year expected life for such equipment which is specified in Bulletin F, but instead, determined that the equipment had a useful life of 15 years. Petitioner argues that such equipment has a useful life of 50 years.