Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Leeds and Lippincott Company v. United States

Leeds & Lippincott Co. v. United States, 276 F.2d 927 (3d Cir. 1960)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1960-04-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Judge Madden in the District Court held that the transfer of properties and lease back arrangement, here involved, between the taxpayer and the insurance company, was in substance a mortgage, not a sale and therefore taxpayer was not entitled to receive credit for a capital loss. Under the particular facts and the law of the case (see Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 1939, 308 U.S. 252, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226) we must agree.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leeds and Lippincott Company v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
LEEDS AND LIPPINCOTT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES,276 F.2d 927(3rd Cir. 1960)
LEEDS AND LIPPINCOTT COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES.
No. 13095.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued March 24, 1960.
Decided April 5, 1960.
Converse Murdoch, Philadelphia, Pa. (Kenneth W. Gemmill, Anthony L. Bartolini, Philadelphia, Pa., James N. Butler, Atlantic City, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Charles B.E. Freeman, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Chester A. Weidenburner, U.S. Atty., Frank J. Ferry, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Judge Madden in the District Court held that the transfer of properties and lease back arrangement, here involved, between the taxpayer and the insurance company, was in substance a mortgage, not a sale and therefore taxpayer was not entitled to receive credit for a capital loss.

Under the particular facts and the law of the case (see Helvering v. F. R. Lazarus Co., 1939,308 U.S. 252, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226) we must agree.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.