U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1963

Martin Weiner and Tillie Weiner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided April 22, 1963 · Biggs, Kalodner, Forman

316 F.2d 473; 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1316; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5506 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Marvin Lyons, New York City (James A. Levitan, Benjamin Nadel, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners., Crombie J. D. Garrett, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Humacid Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1964)

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

PER CURIAM.

We here review an unreported decision of the Tax Court of the United States. The substance of the issue presented is whether the Tax Court erred in holding that gain on the disposition of the Regency Textiles, Inc. note was taxable as ordinary income or was entitled to treatment as a long-term capital gain under Section 1222(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1222(3). The essence of the question is whether there was or was not a bona, fide sale or exchange of the note which requires recognition for tax purposes. The Tax Court, in a well reasoned opinion by Judge Atkins, answered this question in the negative and concluded therefore that the gain was taxable as ordinary income. Upon review of the facts and of the law we can perceive no error in the decision of the Tax Court. Accordingly, it will be affirmed.

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