From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Rosenbloom Fin

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 17, 1933
66 F.2d 556 (3d Cir. 1933)

Summary

In Commissioner v. Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, 66 F.2d 556, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a transfer of stock under similar conditions was a gift.

Summary of this case from Bothin Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Opinion

No. 5094.

August 17, 1933.

Petition by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, opposed by the Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, to review a decree of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Decree set aside, and record remanded.

Helen R. Carloss, Sewall Key and J. Louis Monarch, all of Washington, D.C. (C.M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and John D. Foley, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for petitioner.

Wm. W. Spalding, of Washington, D.C. (Mason, Spalding McAtee, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


The underlying question in this tax case is whether whisky warehouse certificates owned by the Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, the taxpayer, were acquired by gift from its majority shareholder, Sol Rosenbloom. If acquired by gift, their value for ascertaining profit was their cost to the donor, $51,538.26. If not so acquired, their cost to the taxpayer was $269,494.97. The Board of Tax Appeals held the transaction was not a gift, and the Commissioner took this appeal. There is no dispute as to facts, and the question is wholly one of law. The facts, a full discussion thereof, and citations of authorities bearing on the case are set forth at full length in the findings and opinion of the Tax Board, and by reference thereto we avoid useless restatement.

The taxpayer paid Rosenbloom no money, stock, or other consideration therefor. It was a voluntary transfer of property without consideration or compensation therefor, and the form it took involved no ownership by any third party, and, whatever form or semblance it took, in substance and reality it was a transfer with the aim of avoiding tax. In our judgment it was a gift. The decree of the Tax Board will therefore be set aside and the record remanded for due procedure in accord herewith.


Summaries of

Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Rosenbloom Fin

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 17, 1933
66 F.2d 556 (3d Cir. 1933)

In Commissioner v. Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, 66 F.2d 556, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a transfer of stock under similar conditions was a gift.

Summary of this case from Bothin Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

In Commissioner v. Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, 66 F.2d 556, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a transfer of stock under similar conditions was a gift.

Summary of this case from King v. United States
Case details for

Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Rosenbloom Fin

Case Details

Full title:COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ROSENBLOOM FINANCE CORPORATION

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Aug 17, 1933

Citations

66 F.2d 556 (3d Cir. 1933)

Citing Cases

Bothin Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The Board of Tax Appeals held that petitioner should have used the same basis as Bothin would have been…

King v. United States

Having reached the conclusion that the tax in question was properly collected under section 204(a)(8), it is…