Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
282 F.2d 592 (1960)


Facts

The University of Washington (university) owned property consisting of four city blocks in Seattle. In 1907, the Metropolitan Building Company (Metropolitan) (plaintiff) acquired a lease for the property ending on November 1, 1954. In 1922, the Metropolitan subleased one of the blocks. The sublease ended just before the expiration of Metropolitan’s lease with the university. The sublease agreement required the sublessee to construct a hotel on the property and pay an annual rental of $25,000. The sublessee also agreed to pay property taxes assessed against Metropolitan. The Olympic hotel was completed and in 1936, Olympic, Inc. acquired the sublease. In 1952, in anticipation of the expiration of Metropolitan’s lease, the university began negotiating a new lease of the hotel beginning November 1954. Olympic, Inc. proposed to immediately secure the transfer of Metropolitan’s remaining interest in the hotel and property to the university, and to thereupon enter a 22-year lease with the university. Under this scheme, the university would benefit from $725,000 in rental income prior to November 1, 1954, which it would not otherwise have been entitled to. The university accepted Olympic, Inc.’s proposal and entered into negotiations with Metropolitan. On September 8, 1952, Metropolitan agreed to relinquish all its right, title, and interest in the hotel and property to the university in exchange for $137,000 payable by Olympic, Inc. Metropolitan states that $137,000 was the sum of the amount of rent that remained uncollected under the lease and the taxes assessed against Metropolitan. The Commissioner (defendant) ruled that receipt of $137,000 in 1952 was ordinary income to Metropolitan. The Tax Court affirmed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Merrill, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 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 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.