Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Bradshaw v. United States

683 F.2d 365 (1982)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Bradshaw v. United States

United States Court of Claims

683 F.2d 365 (1982)

Facts

In 1961 Thomas E. Swift, a real estate developer, purchased land (the property) in Georgia for $60,000. In 1968 Swift created a corporation, Castlewood (plaintiff), to subdivide, develop, and sell lots in a subdivision, Castlewood Subdivision (the subdivision). The location and character of the land made it likely that the subdivision would be successful. That same year, Swift transferred the property to Castlewood for the subdivision. The fair market value of the property was $250,000, and Swift’s basis in the property was around $8,500. In exchange for the property, Castlewood gave Swift five promissory notes, each for $50,000 with a 4 percent interest rate. The notes matured annually, beginning in 1971. From 1970 to 1973, Castlewood sold 18 lots in the subdivision for a total of $240,000. After factoring in the proportional land and development costs, Castlewood made a profit of $80,500. Castlewood reported the sales on its income-tax returns. In 1976 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined a deficiency against Castlewood, arguing that the transfer of property from Swift to the subdivision was not a sale but a capital contribution governed by § 351 of the Internal Revenue Code. Because the transfer was governed by § 351, the Commissioner calculated Castlewood’s basis in the property under § 362 and determined that its basis was $8,500, the same as Swift’s basis before the transfer. Therefore, Castlewood’s taxable income on the sale of the lots was higher than reported. Castlewood appealed, arguing that the transfer of land was a sale and that therefore its basis in the property was the sale price it paid Swift in the promissory notes totaling $250,000.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bennett, 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 618,000 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 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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 618,000 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
  • 35,600 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