G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Nelson v. United States (Court of Claims 1947)
- June M. Carlberg, by Vida M. Frick, Guardian v. United States (8th Cir. 1960)
- Maine Steel, Inc. v. United States (District Court, D. Maine 1959)
- National Bank of Commerce of Norfolk v. United States (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1958)
- Commissioner v. Bondholders Committee (9th Cir. 1941)
- Britt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1940)
- United Light & Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1939)
- Rex Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner (7th Cir. 1939)
- Hendee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1938)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Western Power Corp. (2d Cir. 1938)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kitselman (7th Cir. 1937)
- Gross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1937)
- C. T. Inv. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1937)
- United States v. Hendler (4th Cir. 1937)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1936)
- Ballwood Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (3d Cir. 1936)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Groman (7th Cir. 1936)
- Hudson v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)
- Groman v. Commissioner (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Tousant (Mass. 1941)
- Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1940)
- Hartzel v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)
- Britt v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)
- Hartzel v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1939)
- Leckie v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1938)
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner contests the validity of a deficiency assessment for 1929 income taxes. It maintains that the transaction out of which the alleged gains arose amounted to a reorganization within the intendment of § 112 (i) (1) (A), Revenue Act, 1928. †
The court below was of opinion that the transaction involved amounted to a sale of the assets and business of the taxpayer. In November, 1929, petitioner transferred what the Board of Tax Appeals seems to have assumed was substantially all of its assets to the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation and received therefor $200,000 in cash and 17,250 shares common stock of the purchaser, then worth possibly thirty dollars per share. After the trans *391 fer, the taxpayer remained in existence and continued to do business. It also retained assets of undisclosed value, namely, shares of certain subsidiary corporations and some other property. If the claim of the taxpayer that the transfer included substantially all its property is correct, then we think what was done amounted to a reorganization within the statute. The facts in respect of this were not found by the Board of Tax Appeals, and the cause must be returned there in order that the omission may be supplied. The mere fact that the taxpayer and its subsidiaries continued actively in business would not defeat the claim of reorganization. The ownership of the stock in the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation gave the taxpayer a substantial and continuing interest in the affairs of that corporation.
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with direction to that Court to remand the case to the Board of Tax Appeals for determination of the value of the retained assets and such further proceedings as may be necessary.
Reversed.
Margin of opinion in Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., ante, p. 378.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.