Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/331/694/case.php
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 20:33:39
Document Index: 336531889

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24']

The Commissioner disallowed these deductions on the authority of § 24(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, [Footnote 1] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On the taxpayers' applications to the Tax Court, it held § 24(b) inapplicable, following its own decision in Ickelheimer v. Commissioner, [Footnote 2] and expunged the Commissioner's deficiency assessments. [Footnote 3] The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court, [Footnote 4] and we granted certiorari [Footnote 5] because of a conflict between circuits [Footnote 6] and the importance of the question involved. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In support of this contention, they call our attention to the pre-1934 rule, which applied to all sales regardless of the relationship of seller and buyer, and made the deductibility of the resultant loss turn on the "good faith" of the sale -- i.e., whether the seller actually parted with title and control. [Footnote 7] They point out that, in the case of the usual intra-family sale, the evidence material to this issue was peculiarly within the knowledge and even the control of the taxpayer and those amenable to his wishes, and inaccessible to the Government. [Footnote 8] They maintain that the only purpose of the provisions of the 1934 and 1937 Revenue Acts -- the forerunners of § 24(b) [Footnote 9] -- was to chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is clear, however, that this difficulty is one which arises out of the close relationship of the parties, and would be met whenever, by prearrangement, one spouse sells and another buys the same property at a common price, regardless of the mechanics of the transaction. Indeed, if the property is fungible, the possibility that a sale and purchase may be rendered nugatory by the buying chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and that these provisions were proposed to "deny losses to be taken in the case of [such] sales," and "to close this loophole of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We are clear as to this purpose, too, that its effectuation obviously had to be made independent of the manner in which an intra-group transfer was accomplished. Congress, with such purpose in mind, could not have intended to include within the scope of § 24(b) only simple transfers made directly or through a dummy, or to exclude chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Nor can we agree that Congress' omission from § 24(b) of any prescribed time interval, comparable in function to that in the wash sales provisions, indicates that § 24(b) was not intended to apply to intra-family transfers through the Exchange. Petitioners' argument is predicated on the difficulty which courts may have in determining chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We can understand how this phraseology, if construed literally and out of context, might be thought to mean chanroblesvirtualawlibrary