Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Tax
The MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, Appellee, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellant
519 F.2d 1154·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, Appellee, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellant.
No. 74-1996.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 1975.
Decided July 30, 1975.
Robert A. Bernstein, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Lyman G. Friedman, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal by the Commissioner from the decision of the Tax Court holding that the value of the land conveyed to the taxpayer, The May Department Stores Company, by developer of a shopping center in return for taxpayer’s agreement to locate and maintain a retail store on the site conveyed is excludable from taxpayer’s gross income as a contribution to capital under § 118(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. § 118(a)).
The Tax Court’s opinion upon which its decision is based is reported at 33 T.C.M. 1128 (1974). The Tax Court’s opinion sets out the facts, which are stipulated for the most part, and applicable law. The Tax Court determined that the benefits sought by the grantors were indirect and intangible and that the value of the land conveyed to taxpayer was a capital contribution within the meaning of § 118(a), and as such properly excluded from taxpayer’s gross income. The Tax Court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and not induced by any erroneous view of the law.
We affirm on the basis of the Tax Court’s opinion.