Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Berghash v. Commissioner

43 T.C. 743 (1965)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...

Berghash v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

43 T.C. 743 (1965)

Facts

Hyman Berghash (plaintiff) owned all 200 shares of common stock in Delavan-Bailey Drug Co., Inc. (Delavan-Bailey) (plaintiff). Sidney Lettman, a manager for Delavan-Bailey, expressed a desire to leave Delavan-Bailey unless he acquired a 50 percent interest in Delavan-Bailey. However, Lettman had only $25,000 in capital—an insufficient amount to purchase 100 shares. Berghash and Lettman entered into a contract under which they agreed to form a new corporation, Dorn’s Drugs, Inc. (Dorn’s), in which Lettman would own half of the 200 shares of common stock. Pursuant to the contract, Lettman paid $25,000 for 100 shares of Dorn’s common stock. Meanwhile, Delavan-Bailey sold the entirety of its assets—including fixtures, inventory, and goodwill—to Dorn’s, which paid Delavan-Bailey with a promissory note for $96,101.64 and the other 100 shares of its common stock. Delavan-Bailey then made a distribution in liquidation to Berghash. This distribution included the 100 shares of Dorn’s stock, the promissory note, and $49,313.17 in cash. Delavan-Bailey was dissolved, at which point it had accumulated earnings and profits of $122,050.11. The corporate name of Dorn’s was subsequently changed to Delavan-Bailey Drug Co., Inc. Berghash reported a long-term capital gain on the old Delavan-Bailey liquidation. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) determined that Berghash had realized dividend income in the amount of the old Delavan-Bailey’s earnings and profits. The commissioner also assessed a deficiency against Delavan-Bailey for the capital gain realized on the sale of its fixtures and goodwill. Berghash and Delavan-Bailey challenged the assessments in the United States Tax Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Withey, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership