Diebold Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that recasting a transaction under state law “may require, as it does in this case, a different showing” than doing so under federal law
• noting that recasting a transaction under state law “may require, as it does in this case, a different showing” than doing so under federal law
• rejecting the Commissioner’s argument that State law liability is determined on the basis of a transaction as recast under Federal law
• rejecting the Commissioner's argument that State law liability is determined on the basis of a transaction as recast under Federal law
• finding insolvency under DCL Section 271 after corporate defendant sold assets and made a \liquidating distribution\ without discussing the company's subjective perspective
• rejecting the Commissioner’s argument that State law liability is determined on the basis of a transaction as recast under Federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).