Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-5-2006

Lattera v. Commissioner IRS Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-4721

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "Lattera v. Commissioner IRS" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1191. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1191

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-4721

GEORGE LATTERA; ANGELINE LATTERA,

Appellants

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court Docket No. 03-4269 Tax Court Judge: Honorable Juan F. Vasquez

Argued January 9, 2006

Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and DEBEVOISE,* District Judge

(Opinion filed February 14, 2006)

ORDER AMENDING PUBLISHED OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed February 14, 2006, be amended as follows:

* Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. On page 5, sixth line in the first paragraph, insert a comma between “that” and “when”.

On page 5, seventh line in the first paragraph, replace “that sale” with “the sale”.

On page 19, second line up from the bottom of the page, delete “stocks or” and “both of” so that the parenthetical sentence reads “(This can be seen in the sale of bonds, which produce ordinary income, but the sale of which is treated as capital gain.)”.

On page 20, first line on the page, change “concept” to “distinction”, so that the phrase reads: “Sinclair explains the distinction”.

On page 20, first paragraph, lines 8–10, delete: “; see also Rhodes’ Estate v. Comm’r,

(6th Cir. 1942) (per curiam) (holding that a sale of dividend rights is taxable as ordinary income).” and, in its place, insert: “(Of course, in the wake of dividend tax reform, stock dividends are now taxed as capital gains. I.R.C. § 1(h)(11).)” Thus, lines 8–10 will now read: “payments. Id. (Of course, in the wake of dividend tax reform, stock dividends are now taxed as capital gains. I.R.C. § 1(h)(11).) For the right to earn”.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: April 5, 2006

2