Latimer-Looney Chevrolet, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
19 T.C. 120 (1952)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Latimer-Looney Chevrolet, Inc. (Latimer-Looney) (plaintiff) operated a General Motors franchise selling new and used Chevrolet and Cadillac vehicles. Latimer-Looney acquired new inventory through a floor-plan-financing arrangement with General Motors, paying a nominal handling fee and interest on vehicles held more than five days without payment. New vehicles sold to customers were required to remain unused and were typically delivered to customers shortly after arrival. However, Latimer-Looney designated certain new vehicles as company cars. Once designated, Latimer-Looney paid for the cars in full, insured them for its benefit, and registered them in its own name. Afterward, there were no restrictions on the vehicles’ use. The cars were used for various legitimate business purposes, including manager travel, customer service, vehicle towing and delivery, employee transportation, business-related errands, and civic programs. To avoid an increase in operating costs and a decrease in value, company cars were sold after accumulating between 8,000 and 12,000 miles and being held for over a year. On its 1949 tax return, Latimer-Looney claimed $3,214.34 in depreciation deductions for 26 company cars and reported $5,691.54 in long-term capital gains from the sale of 10 company cars. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (defendant) assessed a deficiency, asserting that the company cars did not qualify for § 1231 treatment because they remained inventory and were held for sale to customers. Latimer-Looney petitioned the tax court for a redetermination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.

