Honigman v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
466 F.2d 69 (1972)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
Jason Honigman and Edith Honigman (plaintiffs) were one of three families that were the principal stockholders of National Building Corporation (National), which was in the commercial real estate business. In 1963, National was to be liquidated and its assets sold. Prior to the liquidation, National attempted to sell an unsuccessful hotel in order for National to recognize the loss. Unable to sell the hotel publicly, National sold the hotel to a corporation organized by the Honigmans for the purchase. The purchase price was lower than the price previously offered to outsiders of the corporation. The Honigmans reported no income from the transaction, and National recognized a loss for the amount that National’s basis for the hotel exceeded the purchase price. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined that the purchase had resulted in dividends to the Honigmans in the amount that the hotel’s fair market value exceeded its purchase price and therefore that this amount was taxable as income for the Honigmans and could not be deducted as a loss by National. The tax court agreed with the Commissioner and held in part that the transaction resulted in a dividend to the extent that the fair market value exceeded the purchase price. The Honigmans appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, C.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.
