MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Original discount income from selling notes before maturity is capital gain under Section 117(f) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code.
A taxpayer received original discount income upon selling notes before maturity. The issue is whether this income qualifies as capital gain.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Capital Gains Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granting judgment in favor of the appellee, a taxpayer, against the United States, the appellant. The sole question presented on the appeal is whether original discount income received upon the sale of notes prior to their maturity is entitled to be treated as capital gains under Section 117(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Judge Kalbfleiseh of the District Court wrote a comprehensive opinion in the case in which he followed the ruling of this Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Caulkins, 6 Cir., 144 F. 2d 482. While some courts1 have taken a contrary view on the issue presented we are of the opinion that the Caulkins case, controlling in our circuit, was correctly decided.
The pertinent facts are stated in the opinion of the District Court reported at Midland-Ross Corp. v. United States, 214 F.Supp. 631. We agree with the opinion of Judge Kalbfleiseh and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. Dixon v. United States, 333 F. 2d 1016, C.A.2; Pattiz v. United States, 311 F. 2d 947, Ct.Cl.; United States v. Harrison, 304 F. 2d 835, C.A.5, cert. den., 372 U. S. 934, 83 S.Ct. 881, 9 L.Ed.2d 765; Rosen v. United States, 288 F. 2d 658, C.A.3; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Morgan, 272 F. 2d 936, C.A.9.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Midland-Ross Corp., 381 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1965)
Authorities Cited
- Meyer v. United States, 372 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1963)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Caulkins, 144 F.2d 482 (6th Cir. 1944)
- Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Morgan, 272 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1959)
- Rosen v. United States, 288 F.2d 658 (3d Cir. 1961)
- United States v. O. D. Harrison and wife, 304 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Oscar S. and Leona W. Pattiz v. United States, 311 F.2d 947 (Ct. Cl. 1963)
- Dixon v. The United States, 333 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1964)