Am. Bantam Car Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 177 F.2d 513 (3rd Cir. 1949). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Bantam Car Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 177 F.2d 513 (3rd Cir. 1949). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
91 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner (2×)
unknown court · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Bantam Car Co. v. Commissioner , 11 T.C. 397 (1948) , affd. 177 F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1949) .
discussed Cited "see" D'Angelo Assoc., Inc. v. Commissioner (2×)
unknown court · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Bantam Car Co. v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 397 (1948), affd. per curiam 177 F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1949), cert. denied 339 U.S. 920 (1950).
discussed Cited "see" Edgar v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Bantam Car Co ., 11 T.C. 397 , 406 (1948) , affirmed per curiam 177 F.2d 513 (C.A. 3, 1949), certiorari denied 339 U.S. 920 (1950) ; Sheppard v. United States , 361 F.2d 972 , 980 (Ct.Cl. 1966) .
discussed Cited "see" Meyer v. Commissioner (2×)
unknown court · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Bantam, Car Co., 11 T.C. 397, 406-407 , affd. 177 F. 2d 513 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lawrence B. Sheppard and Charlotte N. Sheppard v. The United States
Ct. Cl. · 1966 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., American Bantam Car Co. v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 397, 406 (1948), aff’d per curiam, 177 F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 920 , 70 S.Ct. 622 , 94 L.Ed. 134 (1950).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN BANTAM CAR COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
9989.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 14, 1949.
177 F.2d 513
Lee W. Eckels, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner., Sumner M. Redstone, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Ellis N. Slack, Special Assistant to the Attorney General on the brief), for respondent., Norman H. Gerlach, Chicago, Ill., amicus curiae.
Maris, Goodrich, O'Connell.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The controlling question in this case is i whether the exchange under which the assets of the taxpayer corporation were acquired upon its organization in exchange for its stock was one in which neither gain nor loss was to be recognized under Section 112(b) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 26 U.S.C.A. § 112(b) (5). We are satisfied for the reasons well stated in the opinion filed by Judge Hill for the Tax 'Court in banc, 11 T.C. 397, that the transaction in question was such an exchange and that the assets accordingly took in the hands of the corporation the basis which they had in the hands of the transferors pursuant to Section 113(a) (8) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 113(a) (8) (A).

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.