Terence J. Horn and Jean Horn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Terence J. Horn and Jean Horn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a different provision authorized a loss deduction because it expressly deemed certain losses to be losses incurred in a trade or business, even though it arguably “grant[ed] beneficial tax treatment to economically meaningless behavior”
• “extract[ing]” from economic substance and business purpose tests that transaction “will not be considered a sham if it is undertaken for profit or for other legitimate nontax business purposes”
• “a transaction will not be considered a sham if it is undertaken for profit or for other legitimate nontax business purposes”
• the sham transaction doctrine “cannot be used to preempt congressional intent.... Congress has the power to authorize [certain] transactions, whether or not they are economic shams.”
• “Although useful in determining congressional intent and in avoiding results unintended by tax code provisions, the [Culbertson] doctrine cannot trump the plainly expressed intent of the legislature.”
• identifying “risk allocation” as one such alternative nontax business purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).