U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1972

Head Ski Company, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided January 26, 1972 · Boreman, Bryan, Butzner, Per Curiam

454 F.2d 732; 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 496; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11618 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Richard W. Perkins, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Fred B. Ugast, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and Stephen H. Hutzelman, Attys. Dept, of Justice, and George Beall, U. S. Atty., D. Md., and John G. Sakellaris, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellant., Edward S. Smith, Baltimore, Md. (Albert S. Barr, III, Paul V. Niemeyer, and Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

National Can Corp. v. United States (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1981)
Hunt Foods & Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1975)

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:

The government appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of Head Ski Company granting a refund of income tax for 1965. 1

The sole issue is whether a premium Head Ski paid for the redemption of a convertible note was deductible as a business expense or nondeductible as a capital outlay. Applying Treasury Regulation § 1.61-12(e) (1) (1965), 2 the district court held that the premium was deductible. In reaching this conclusion, it relied primarily on Southwest Grease & Oil Company, Inc. v. United States, 435 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1971), and Roberts & Porter, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 307 F.2d 745 (7th Cir. 1962), which in their material aspects are indistinguishable. We affirm.

. Head Ski Co. v. United States, 323 F. S,upp. 1383 (D.Md. 1971).

. Tlie transaction occurred before the effective date of 26 U.S.C. § 249 (1969), which contains a limitation on the deduction of a premium paid to repurchase convertible obligations.

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