From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boehm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 20, 1958
255 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1958)

Opinion

No. 239, Docket 24817.

Argued May 13, 1958.

Decided May 20, 1958.

Louis Boehm, New York City (Rubin H. Marcus and E. Perry Rabbino, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners-appellants.

Davis W. Morton, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson and Robert N. Anderson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and SWAN and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.


In a well considered opinion reported in 28 T.C. 407, Judge Harron has rejected the taxpayers' claim of a loss deduction on sale of stock, holding that the wife's sale of shares in her wholly owned corporations to her father-in-law and the purchase by the corporations of the same amount at the same price on the same day amounted to an indirect sale between her and her corporations, as prohibited by I.R.C. 1939, § 24(b)(1)(B). As Judge Harron shows, the fact that the family relationship was not that defined in the somewhat corresponding prohibition of § 24(b) (1)(A) is immaterial. We are content to affirm on her opinion.


Summaries of

Boehm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 20, 1958
255 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1958)
Case details for

Boehm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:Robert BOEHM and Frances Boehm, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1958

Citations

255 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1958)

Citing Cases

Poole v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

The Supreme Court looked to the reality of the situation and found that there had been an indirect transfer…

Poole v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The Supreme Court looked to the reality of the situation and found that there had been an indirect transfer…