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.
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
PENNSYLVANIA INDEMNITY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
77 F.2d 92·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1935
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
PENNSYLVANIA INDEMNITY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 5608.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 27, 1935.
Francis Chapman, Henry S. Drinker, Jr., and Frederick E. S. Morrison, all of Philadelphia, Pa. (Chapman & Chapman and Drinker, Biddle & Reath, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for petitioner.
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum and J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The pertinent facts in this income tax case are as follows: The Pennsylvania Indemnity Company acquired in 1930 from its wholly owned subsidiaries certain securities having a then market value of $420,-051, which it immediately sold through brokers for $420,732.25. For those securities the taxpayer paid $666,967.37 to its subsidiaries. The sole question is whether the taxpayer has a right to deduct $247,637.-29 from its gross income, representing the difference between the amount it paid its subsidiaries and the amount ultimately received from resale. The Tax Board held it had no right to deduct; thereupon the taxpayer took this appeal. We are of opinion no error was committed by the board.
The situation was that the financial standing of the taxpayer’s two, wholly owned, subsidiary companies had been, to that extent, impaired by the drop in value of their assets of some $270,000. Evidently with the purpose of restoring such depreciation, the owning company took over the depreciated assets, not at their then market price, but at their original cost price, and immediately sold the same at market price and at a loss of some $246,000. Measured by the ordinary relations of life, it was the old story of a father making good the loss of his son’s business and starting him again with an unimpaired capital. The order of the board is affirmed.