Neville Coke & Chemical Company v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
148 F.2d 599 (1945)
Facts
Hillman Coal & Coke Company (Hillman) and W.J. Rainey, Inc. (Rainey) advanced money and sold coal on credit to Davison Coke & Iron Company (Davison). In 1932, Davison was in financial distress, and a reorganization plan was created. Hillman and Rainey formed Neville Coke & Chemical Company (Neville Coke) (plaintiff) to facilitate the reorganization. Hillman and Rainey transferred their preferred accounts, first mortgage bonds, accounts receivable, notes of Davison due in three, four, and five years, and various classifications of stock in Davison to Neville Coke. Davison’s financial problem persisted, and the company filed for bankruptcy. A new reorganization plan was approved in 1936 as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Under the new reorganization plan, Davison issued common stock and debenture bonds. Holders of Davison’s old bonds were debentures. Additionally, the holders of certain notes in Davison received new debentures in the same face amount plus over 22,000 shares of Davison stock in the newly reorganized company. In Neville Coke’s 1936 tax return, the company did not include a gain realized on the exchange of notes for debentures and stock. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) argued that Neville Coke realized a taxable gain on the exchange. Neville Coke appealed to the United States Tax Court; however, the tax court upheld the commissioner’s determination. Neville Coke appealed to the circuit court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goodrich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 684,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 42,800 briefs, keyed to 988 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.