Arkansas Best Corp. v. Commissioner Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company bought bank stock to protect its business reputation and later sold it at a loss. The Supreme Court held the loss was a capital loss, not an ordinary one, because a taxpayer’s business motive for acquiring an asset does not change its definition as a capital asset under the tax code.
Legal Significance: This landmark case significantly narrowed the Corn Products doctrine, establishing that a taxpayer’s business motive is irrelevant in determining if an asset is a capital asset under § 1221. The analysis must focus on the statutory definition and its enumerated exceptions.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Arkansas Best Corporation, a diversified holding company, acquired a controlling interest in a bank. Initially, the stock purchases were for investment purposes. As the bank’s financial health declined due to a downturn in the real estate market, federal examiners classified it as a problem bank. To protect its own business reputation and prevent the bank’s failure, Arkansas Best made substantial additional capital infusions by purchasing more stock. These later acquisitions were found by the Tax Court to be motivated exclusively by business purposes. In 1975, Arkansas Best sold the majority of its bank stock at a nearly $10 million loss. It claimed this as an ordinary loss on its tax return, arguing the stock was not a capital asset because it was held for a business purpose. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction, classifying the loss as a capital loss subject to statutory limitations. The Tax Court bifurcated the loss, treating stock bought for investment as a capital loss and stock bought to protect the business as an ordinary loss. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding all the stock was a capital asset.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a taxpayer’s motive for purchasing an asset relevant to determining whether the asset is a ‘capital asset’ under the general definition provided in § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code?
No. The Court held that the bank stock was a capital asset, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a taxpayer’s motive for purchasing an asset relevant to determining whether the asset is a ‘capital asset’ under the general definition provided in § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code?
Conclusion
This decision mandates a strict statutory approach to defining capital assets, effectively Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Rule
A taxpayer's motivation for purchasing an asset is irrelevant to whether it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
Legal Analysis
The Court conducted a textualist analysis of Internal Revenue Code § 1221, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A taxpayer’s motive (business vs. investment) for acquiring an asset is