Court : US Supreme Court
Doty v. Love - 295 U.S. 64 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Doty v. Love, 295 U.S. 64 (1935) Doty v. Love No. 585 Argued March 11, 12, 1935 Decided April 1, 1935 295 U.S. 64 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The constitutional rights of a depositor of an insolvent state bank, which is in the hands of a liquidating official under direction of a state court, are held not violated by the adoption, under a later statute, of a plan consented to by three-fourths of the depositors and approved by the liquidating official and the court whereby, instead of bringing about liquidation and distribution of the assets through the officer as provided by the general law, the bank was reopened in a reorganized form with new shareholders and took the place of the officer for the purpose of gathering and guarding the assets and discharging the liabilities. P. 295 U. S. 70 . 2. The statute is not given an unconstitutional application because, by the plan approved and decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford - 295 U.S. 555 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935) Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford No. 717 Argued April 1, 2, 1935 Decided May 27, 1935 295 U.S. 555 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The bankruptcy power, like the other great substantive powers of Congress, is subject to the Fifth Amendment. P. 295 U. S. 589 . 2. Under the bankruptcy power, Congress may discharge the debtor's personal obligation because, unlike the States, it is not prohibited from impairing the obligation of contracts; but it cannot take for the benefit of the debtor rights in specific property acquired by the creditor prior to the Act. P. 295 U. S. 589 . 3. The Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the Nation's need, private property shall not be taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation. P. 295 U. S. 602 . 4. If the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast R. Co. v. United States - 296 U.S. 33 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast R. Co. v. United States, 296 U.S. 33 (1935) Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad Co. v. United States No. 9 Argued October 15, 1935 Decided November 11, 1935 296 U.S. 33 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus 1. In a suit by a railroad company to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, concerning accounting and involving a valuation of the railroad's property, held that the court is without power to weigh the evidence that was before the Commission in making its valuation. P. 296 U. S. 38 . 2. The evidence before the Commission in this case supports its finding that the value of the railroad property in question did not exceed the value of its stocks issued in a reorganization following the liquidation of the former owner, the preferred stock being appraised at par and the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co. - 296 U.S. 378 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U.S. 378 (1935) Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., No. 174 Argued November 19, 1935 Decided December 16, 1935 * 296 U.S. 378 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A corporation transferred to another all of its assets in exchange for a large sum in cash and 18,000 shares of common stock of the transferee corporation; it retained the stock and distributed the cash to its own stockholders, who assumed certain of its debts. Held: (1) The transaction was a "reorganization" under 112(i)(1)(A) of the Revenue Act of 1928, which embraces within the meaning of the term reorganization "a merger or consolidation (including the acquisition by one corporation of . . . substantially all of the properties of another corporation)," and no taxable gain was recognizable under the Act. P. 296 U. S. 382 . (2) That the relationship of the taxpay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
John A. Nelson Co. v. Helvering - 296 U.S. 374 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court John A. Nelson Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 374 (1935) John A. Nelson Co. v. Helvering No. 61 Argued November 19, 20, 1935 Decided December 16, 1935 296 U.S. 374 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A corporation transferred substantially all of its property to another corporation in return for cash and the entire issue of preferred stock of the transferee, the stock being without voting rights except in case of default in payment of dividends; the transferor used part of the cash received to retire its own preferred stock, and distributed to its stockholders the remainder of the cash and the preferred stock of the transferee; the transferor corporation did Page 296 U. S. 375 not dissolve, but retained its franchise and continued liable for certain obligations. Held, there was a "reorganization" under 203(h)(1)(A) of the Revenue Act of 1926, and no taxable g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Helvering v. Watts - 296 U.S. 387 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. Watts, 296 U.S. 387 (1935) Helvering v. Watts No. 184 Argued November 20, 1935 Decided December 16, 1935 296 U.S. 387 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Where stockholders owning all of the shares of corporation A exchanged them for stock in corporation B and mortgage bonds of corporation A guaranteed by Corporation B, there was a "reorganization" under 203(h)(1)(A) of the Revenue Act of 1924, and, by the effect of 203(b)(2), no taxable gain resulted notwithstanding the A corporation continued in business. Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., ante, p. 296 U. S. 378 . P. 296 U. S. 388 . 2. The transaction is within the description of reorganization set forth by Article 1574 of Treasury Regulations 65, applicable to the Revenue Act of 1924, and that this regulation is a proper interpretation of the Act is confirmed by the reenactment, without change, by Cong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering - 296 U.S. 389 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 389 (1935) G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering No. 187 Argued November 20, 1935 Decided December 16, 1935 296 U.S. 389 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A transfer by one corporation to another of substantially all of its assets for cash and common stock of the transferee corporation Page 296 U. S. 390 amounts to a reorganization under 112(i)(1)(A) of the Revenue Act of 1928 even though the transferor corporation and its subsidiaries continued in business. P. 296 U. S. 391 . 2. The Board of Tax Appeals having omitted to make finding as to whether the transfer was of substantially all of the assets of the transferor corporation, the cause is remanded for determination by the Board of this essential fact. P. 296 U. S. 391 . 76 F.2d 454 reversed. Certiorari to review a judgment affirming a deci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bus & Transport Securities Corp. v. Helvering - 296 U.S. 391 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Bus & Transport Securities Corp. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 391 (1935) Bus & Transport Securities Corp. v. Helvering No. 490 Argued November 20, 1935 Decided December 16, 1935 296 U.S. 391 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus A corporation transferred shares of stock which it owned to another corporation in exchange for shares of stock which the latter owned, neither party to the exchange acquiring any definite immediate interest in the other. Held, not a reorganization within 112 of the Revenue Act of 1928. P. 296 U. S. 393 . 79 F.2d 509 affirmed. Page 296 U. S. 392 Certiorari to review a judgment affirming a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which sustained an order determining a deficiency in income tax. MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner, Bus & Transport Securities Corporation, challenges a deficiency inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Maugham: This is an appeal from an order dated 9th September 1932, of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales allowing by a majority (Long Innes and Davidson, JJ. Halse Rogers, J., dissenting) an appeal by the present respondents from an order dated 9th October 1931, of the Chief Judge in Equity of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Harvey, J.), for the compulsory winding up of the respondents, Brunswick (Australia), Limited, hereinafter called "the Company." The apparently simple question which arises is whether the Company ought or ought not to be wound up compulsorily on the ground that that course is just and equitable within the meaning of S. 84(e), New South Wales Companies Act, 1899 (No. 565 of 1931), or, more accurately, whether such an order was properly made on the petition to be next mentioned. As will be seen the date of the commencement of the winding up (if any) is of primary importance in this case. The proceedings were begun by a petition presente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Manhattan Gen. Eqpt. Co. v. Commissioner - 297 U.S. 129 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Manhattan Gen. Eqpt. Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129 (1936) Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 226 Argued January 8, 1936 Decided February 3, 1936 * 297 U.S. 129 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A loss resulting from the sale in 1926 of securities in respect of which a distribution pursuant to a plan of reorganization had been made, held properly determined, for the purpose of computing income tax under the Revenue Act of 1926, by the method prescribed by Art. 1599 of Treasury Regulations 65, as amended April 3, 1928, rather than by the original regulation promulgated August 28, 1926, where the effect of applying the original regulation would be to credit the taxpayer with a loss greatly disproportionate as between the stock in respect of which the distribution was made and the stock distributed, contrary t...
Tag this Judgment!