Cities Serv. Co. v. United States, 586 F.2d 967 (2d Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Cities Serv. Co. v. United States, 586 F.2d 967 (2d Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States Steel Corp. v. United States (cc, 1986-12-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States Steel Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cities Service Co. v. United States, 522 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 827 , 96 S.Ct. 43 , 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975), subsequent proceedings on remand, 443 F.Supp. 392 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd per curiam, 586 F.2d 967 (2d Cir.1978); Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R. v. United States, 579 F.2d 892 (5th Cir.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITIES SERVICE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
320, Docket 78-6100.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 6, 1978.
586 F.2d 967
James W. Robinson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Cities Service Co., Tulsa, Okl. (Thomas E. Tyre, New York City, Victor K. Kulp, John A. Lyckman, Attys., Cities Service Co., Tulsa, Okl., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant., Frederick P. Schaffer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, New York City (Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty., William G. Ballaine, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Kaufman, Feinberg, Timbers.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Judge Tenney’s opinion for the district court, reported at 443 F.Supp. 392 (S.D.N.Y.1978). In the prior appeal in this case, Cities Service Co. v. United States, 522 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 827, 96 S.Ct. 43, 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975), we held that issue price for the purpose of calculating “bond discount” was the market value of the debentures on the date of issue. In addition, following the Supreme Court’s holding in Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 147, 94 S.Ct. 2129, 2136, 40 L.Ed.2d 717 (1974), we held that “bond discount” and “loss on repurchase” are merely different terms for the same economic phenomenon. 522 F.2d at 1282 n.2. That holding is dispositive of the instant appeal. Appellant’ s contention would permit it, over the life of the debentures, to recover in deductions the entire difference between the amount it pays on repurchase or retirement and the $45 million original consideration[*968] for the preferred. This is clearly contrary to our opinion on the first appeal. The judgment is affirmed.