Gregory v. Helvering Gregory v. Helvering

Gregory v. Helvering

55 S. CT. 266, 293 U.S. 465, 79 L. ED. 596, 1935.SCT.40044

    • $9.00
    • $9.00

Descripción editorial

Petitioner in 1928 was the owner of all the stock of United Mortgage Corporation. That corporation held among its assets 1,000 shares of the Monitor Securities Corporation. For the sole purpose of procuring a transfer of these shares to herself in order to sell them for her individual profit, and, at the same time, diminish the amount of income tax which would result from a direct transfer by way of dividend, she sought to bring about a "reorganization" under ? 112 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1928, c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 818, set forth later in this opinion. To that end, she caused the Averill Corporation to be organized under the laws of Delaware on September 18, 1928. Three days later, the United Mortgage Corporation transferred to the Averill Corporation the 1,000 shares of Monitor stock, for which all the shares of the Averill Corporation were issued to the petitioner. On September 24, the Averill Corporation was dissolved, and liquidated by distributing all its assets, namely, the Monitor shares, to the petitioner. No other business was ever transacted, or intended to be transacted, by that company. Petitioner immediately sold the Monitor shares for $133,333.33. She returned for taxation as capital net gain the sum of $76,007.88, based upon an apportioned cost of $57,325.45. Further details are unnecessary. It is not disputed that if the interposition of the so-called reorganization was ineffective, petitioner became liable for a much larger tax as a result of the transaction.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1935
7 de enero
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
5
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENTAS
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
55.7
KB

Más libros de Supreme Court of the United States

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2022 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2022
2022
Spinelli v. United States Spinelli v. United States
1969
Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company
1904
United States v. Dunn United States v. Dunn
1987
United States Code Annotated 2024 Edition Title 10 Armed Forces Volume 3/3 United States Code Annotated 2024 Edition Title 10 Armed Forces Volume 3/3
2024
United States Code Annotated 2024 Edition Title 10 Armed Forces Volume 1/3 United States Code Annotated 2024 Edition Title 10 Armed Forces Volume 1/3
2024