Bartels Trust for Benefit of Cornell University ex rel. Bartels v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
617 F.3d 1357 (2010)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
The Bartels Trust for the Benefit of Cornell University (the trust) (plaintiff) was a trust formed to financially support Cornell University. The trust applied for and received tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In tax years 1999 and 2000, the trust purchased stocks on margin, meaning the trust borrowed money from its broker to purchase the stocks. The trust later sold the stocks for a profit. When the trust filed its income tax return for 1999, it reported the income from the sales as capital gains but reported no tax liability. After an IRS audit, the trust paid $48,770 in 1999 due to the stock sales in unrelated-business-income taxes (UBIT) pursuant to the federal tax code. The trust paid $39,479 in UBIT on the stock sales in 2000. The trust subsequently requested a refund of $88,249 from the IRS for the UBIT payments it had made, which the IRS denied. The trust then filed a lawsuit with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the government, finding that the trust’s income from the sale of stocks was unrelated business taxable income subject to the UBIT. The trust appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prost, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.