Carol W. Hilton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

74 T.C. 305 (1982)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Carol W. Hilton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
74 T.C. 305 (1982)

Facts

In 1964 Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (Broadway) entered into a sale-leaseback agreement with Fourth Cavendish Properties, Inc. (Fourth) to build a department store (the property) in Bakersfield, California. In January 1967, construction of the property was completed. On December 20, 1967, Fourth sold the notes to the lenders, turned the proceeds over to Broadway, and transferred the property back to Broadway under a net lease for a 30-year term, with the option to extend. Rent was calculated based on the amount needed to satisfy principal and interest payments when due. The rent went from Broadway to Fourth’s lenders and would be reduced once financing was paid off. In December 1967, when the agreement was effectuated, Fourth transferred 51 percent of its interest to Medway Associates (Medway), inclusive of partner Roderick Cushman, and 49 percent to Fourteenth Property Associates (14th PA), inclusive of partner Jack R. Young & Associates (JRYA). Cushman and JRYA performed substantial services in the creation of the leaseback agreement. After the transfer to Medway, there was an acquisition of interests in Medway by tier partnerships, including Thirty-Seventh Property Associates (37th PA). Possession of the property was never transferred to Fourth or their partnerships. Members of the 14th PA and 37th PA (collectively, the members) (plaintiffs) claimed deductions for partnership losses resulting from interest and depreciation over rental income and payments they made to JRYA and Cushman. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) did not allow these deductions. The members filed suit against the IRS. The IRS provided an expert, C. Everett Steichen, who determined that there was no economic foundation for the investments of the limited partners in 14th PA and 37th PA. The members’ expert, Robert J. Lichter, determined that the transaction was economic and reasonable.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nims, 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 812,000 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 812,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 812,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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