Frank Ix & Sons Virginia Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
375 F.2d 867 (1967)
- Written by Heather Ryfa, JD
Facts
The Ix family owned several corporations, which included a managing corporation and multiple manufacturing mills operated by separate corporations. Cornelius Ix was a mill located in Cornelius, North Carolina, and had been operating at a loss; a bank loan was obtained that had a requirement regarding working capital. Cornelius Ix continued to lose money and was unable to meet the working-capital condition, so a plan of organization was adopted to merge Cornelius Ix with a sister corporation, Charlottesville Ix. Cornelius Ix was the survivor of the merger, which was completed in September 1953. After the merger, Cornelius Ix changed its name to Frank Ix & Sons Virginia Corporation (Frank Ix Virginia) (plaintiff). Frank Ix Virginia deducted the losses of Cornelius Ix from prior years against the tax returns of Frank Ix Virginia for 1957, 1958, and 1959. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (defendant) issued a deficiency determination disallowing these deductions. Frank Ix Virginia appealed to the United States Tax Court, contending that the deductions were permissible because Cornelius Ix, as the surviving corporation in the merger, was the same taxpayer as Frank Ix Virginia. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the commissioner. Frank Ix Virginia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freedman, 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. 46,500 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.