Leslie Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
64 T.C. 247 (1975)

- Written by Laura Julien, JD
Facts
Leslie Company (Leslie) (plaintiff) operated a manufacturing and distribution plant in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. In May 1967, Leslie acquired property in Parsippany, New Jersey, to construct a new plant. In October 1967, after exploring other financing options without success, Leslie entered into a sale and leaseback agreement with Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (Prudential), conditioned upon the sale price not exceeding $2,400,000 or the actual construction cost, whichever was lower. Leslie spent a total of $3,187,414 on its purchase of the property and construction of the plant. In December 1968, Leslie delivered the deed for the Parsippany property to Prudential for $2,400,000. At the time, the fair market value of the Parsippany property was $2,400,000 and the fair market rental value was $190,560 per month. In 1968 Leslie reported a loss of $787,414 on its income-tax report for the sale of the Lyndhurst plant. The commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) found deficiencies in Leslie’s income-tax returns for 1965, 1966, and 1968 resulting from the disallowance of net-operating-loss carrybacks and investment-credit carrybacks based on the net operating loss claimed from the sale and leaseback on Leslie’s return in 1968. The commissioner asserted that the sale and leaseback fell within the nonrecognition provisions of § 1031 of the tax code and, therefore, the claimed loss was not allowable. Leslie claimed that there was no exchange of property within the meaning of § 1031 of the tax code and, therefore, the loss had to be recognized as a capital expense incurred in order to obtain the lease.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Irwin, J.)
Dissent (Tannenwald, 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.