Wolter Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
634 F.2d 1029 (1980)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
Wolter Construction Company (plaintiff) was organized in 1968, with its ownership shared by Brent F. Peacher and Theodore T. Finneseth. River Hills Golf Club, Inc. (River Hills) was organized in 1968, with its ownership shared between Peacher, Finneseth, and Luella Peacher. In 1969 and 1970, River Hills made two additional issuances of stock to Wolter Construction in exchange for the cancellation of numerous liabilities. By March 1970, Wolter Construction owned 80 percent of River Hills’ common stock. Wolter Construction and River Hills filed consolidated income tax returns for 1970 and 1971. These consolidated returns included deductions of the net operating losses reported by River Hills on its separate income tax returns for the 1968, 1969, and abbreviated 1970 tax years. The Internal Revenue Service audited the returns and determined that the carryover and deduction of River Hills’ net operating losses on the 1970 and 1971 consolidated tax returns were limited to River Hills’ income. Because River Hills did not have income in 1970 and 1971, it was determined that no deduction could occur. The commissioner of internal revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) agreed that River Hills’ earlier losses could only be deducted from River Hills’ income on the 1970 and 1971 tax returns. The United States Tax Court upheld the commissioner’s determination. Wolter Construction appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 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.