Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. The United States
126 F. Supp. 184 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The cost basis of property acquired in a taxable exchange is the fair market value of the property received at the time of the exchange.
Facts:
- In 1889, the taxpayer's predecessor was granted a 50-year franchise by the City of Philadelphia to operate a passenger railway.
- Pursuant to the franchise, the predecessor constructed the Strawberry Bridge, which carried its streetcars as well as pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
- By 1934, the bridge required extensive repairs, which the City demanded the taxpayer perform at its own expense.
- The taxpayer, citing its financial condition, offered to transfer ownership of the Strawberry Bridge to the City in exchange for a 10-year extension of its railway franchise.
- On August 3, 1934, the taxpayer transferred the bridge, which had an undepreciated cost (adjusted basis) of $228,852.74, to the City.
- On November 14, 1934, the City formally amended the franchise, extending it from July 24, 1939, to July 24, 1949.
- In 1946, the taxpayer ceased operation of the railway and abandoned its franchise.
Procedural Posture:
- The taxpayer filed its 1946 tax return claiming a large loss from the abandonment of its franchise, resulting in a net operating loss.
- The taxpayer filed claims for refund for its 1944 and 1945 income taxes, seeking to carry back the 1946 net operating loss and arguing that the undepreciated cost of the Strawberry Bridge should be included in the cost of the franchise.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue allowed a portion of the refund claims but denied the taxpayer's request to treat the bridge's undepreciated cost as the cost of the franchise extension.
- The taxpayer sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims, the court of first instance for this type of claim, to recover the alleged overpayment of taxes for 1944 and 1945.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the cost basis of property received in a taxable exchange equal the fair market value of the property received, rather than the adjusted basis of the property given in the exchange?
Opinions:
Majority - Laramore, J.
Yes, the cost basis of property received in a taxable exchange is the fair market value of the property received. The exchange of the Strawberry Bridge for the 10-year franchise extension was a taxable event. The Internal Revenue Code states that the basis of property shall be its cost. In a taxable exchange, gain or loss is calculated as the difference between the adjusted basis of the property given and the fair market value of the property received. To maintain harmony within the tax code's structure, the fair market value of the property received must be treated as its cost basis. This prevents a taxpayer from receiving a stepped-up basis without paying tax or from being subjected to double taxation. Therefore, the taxpayer's cost basis in the franchise extension is its fair market value on August 3, 1934, the date of the exchange, which must be determined for purposes of calculating depreciation and abandonment loss.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of "cost" as used for determining the basis of property under Section 113(a) of the Internal Revenue Code in the context of a taxable property-for-property exchange. It establishes that the basis of the acquired asset is its own fair market value at the time of the transaction, not a carryover of the basis from the asset relinquished. This ruling creates a consistent framework by aligning the basis of the new property with the value recognized for purposes of calculating gain or loss on the exchange, thereby preventing unintended tax consequences like a tax-free step-up in basis or double taxation.
Unlock the full brief for Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. The United States