Estate of Levine v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
634 F.2d 12 (1980)

- Written by Jessica Rice, JD
Facts
In 1944, a corporation owned by Aaron Levine purchased a piece of property. In 1957, the corporation dissolved and made a liquidating distribution of the property to Levine. Levine obtained two nonrecourse mortgages to consolidate previous mortgages and secure the property. During his ownership of the property, Levine reinvested funds back into the property through capital investments, took depreciation deductions as incurred from the mortgages on his federal income-tax returns, and retained a sum of $210,503.77 that he did not reinvest into the property. In 1970, Levine gifted the property to a previously created trust for the benefit of his grandchildren. In gifting the property, the trust assumed the remaining mortgages, interest, and unpaid expenses associated with the property. Levine filed a gift-tax return reporting the transfer and paid a gift tax on the equity realized. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) assessed Levine a deficiency on his income tax stating that Levine had also realized a gain in the amount of the excess of the total mortgages, interests, and expenses and that Levine should have remitted a capital-gain tax on that amount. Levine’s widow and his estate (plaintiff) challenged the commissioner’s deficiency notice in the United States Tax Court. The tax court upheld the commissioner’s decision, and the estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.