U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2015

Humboldt Shelby Holding Corp. v. Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided June 3, 2015 · Hall, Lohier, Wesley

606 F. App'x 20

Counsel

Jasper G. Taylor III (Richard L. Hunn, on the brief), Norton Rose Fulbright U.S. LLP, Houston, TX, for Appellant., Judith A. Hagley (Gilbert S. Rothenberg and Richard Farber, on the brief), Attor-1 neys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, for Caroline D. Ciraolo, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Dillon Trust Company LLC v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2022)
Terry L. Wright & Cheryl A. Wright (United States Tax Court 2024)
Dillon Trust Company LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2026)
Besicorp v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 2026)
New Capital Fire, Inc. (United States Tax Court 2021)
Trust U/W/O BH and MW Namm F/B/O Andrew I. Namm, Andrew I. Namm and James Doran, Trustees, Transferee v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2018)
New Millennium Trading, LLC v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2017)
Keith A. Tucker & Laura B. Tucker v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2017)
McNeill v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2017)
Tucker v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2017)
AD Inv. 2000 Fund LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (United States Tax Court 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant Humboldt Shelby Holding Corporation (“Humboldt/Shelby”) appeals from the tax court’s March 19, 2014, decision sustaining in full the tax deficiency and penalties against Humboldt/Shelby determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the July 15, 2014, decision denying Humboldt/Shelby’s motion for reconsideration. The tax court upheld the Commissioner’s disallowance, applying the test articulated in this Circuit for determining whether a transaction is a sham for want of economic substance. See Gilman v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 1991). The tax court found that the investment was devoid of economic substance and was entered into solely for income tax benefits. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Goeke’s comprehensive opinion. See Humboldt Shelby Holding Corp. v. Comm’r, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1242 (2014).

We have considered Humboldt/Shelby’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. -For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the tax court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.