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

Starker v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
602 F.2d 1341 (1979)


Facts

In 1967, T.J. Starker (plaintiff), Bruce Starker, and Elizabeth Starker signed a land-exchange agreement with Crown Zellerbach Corporation (Crown). The agreement required the Starkers to convey their interest in 1,843 acres of Oregon timberland to Crown in return for Crown’s agreement to transfer suitable property in Washington and Oregon to the Starkers within five years or pay any outstanding balance in cash, plus an annual growth factor of 6 percent of the outstanding balance. Within four months of transferring the timberland to Crown, Bruce and Elizabeth Starker found suitable property, which Crown purchased and conveyed without needing to add a credit for growth factor. As for T.J. Starker, Crown purchased and transferred 10 parcels to T.J. Starker, plus two parcels to his daughter, over a two-year period. The total value of these parcels was $1,577,387.91, including a growth factor. The Starkers reported no gain from any of these sales on their 1967 federal income-tax returns, treating the sales as part of a like-kind exchange. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disagreed with this characterization and assessed deficiencies. The Starkers paid the deficiencies and then filed claims for refunds, which the IRS denied. The Starkers then sued the IRS for refunds in district court. The district court ruled in favor of Bruce and Elizabeth Starker. The IRS appealed that decision but then voluntarily dismissed the appeal. As for T.J. Starker, however, the IRS claimed that T.J. Starker was liable for capital-gains taxes on profits from his sales as well as income tax on the 6 percent growth factor he received from the sales. The district court ruled in favor of the IRS with respect to T.J. Starker’s claim and dismissed the case. T.J. Starker appealed.

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 (Goodwin, 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 222,000 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.