Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Leslie Co. v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
539 F.2d 943 (3d Cir. 1976)


Leslie Company (Leslie) (plaintiff) is a corporation engaged in manufacturing and distribution. In March 1967, Leslie purchased land for a new plant in Parsippany, New Jersey. However, it was unable to obtain financing for construction. Leslie therefore entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement with Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (Prudential), under which Leslie would build the plant and Prudential would purchase the constructed plant for the lesser of its projected cost of $2,400,000 or its actual cost. Prudential would then lease the plant back to Leslie. In 1968, Leslie completed construction on the plant, having spent $3,187,414. Leslie unconditionally conveyed the plant to Prudential for $2,400,000, a price consistent with the fair market value for property in the area. Pursuant to the agreement, Prudential leased the plant to Leslie for a 30-year term at an annual rental of $190,560, which was consistent with the fair rental value of properties in the area. The lease specified that in the event of condemnation or damages to trade fixtures or structural improvements, Prudential would have the right to all proceeds and Leslie would not be entitled to take a deduction for its leasehold interest. On its income tax return for 1968, Leslie reported a $787,414 loss from the sale of the plant. The Commissioner ruled that no recognizable loss had occurred because the transaction was a nontaxable exchange covered by Internal Revenue Code § 1031. The Commissioner held that the $787,414 was a capital expense incurred to obtain the lease and required its amortization over the course of the 30-year lease. The Tax Court disagreed, ruling that the transaction was a sale and that the loss was recognizable in the year incurred. Specifically, the Tax Court found that the leasehold had no capital value and was therefore not a part of the consideration paid for the plant.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Garth, 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 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial