Liant Record, Inc., William I. Alpert and Paula G. Alpert, Abraham Alpert and Sarah Alpert, Jack L. Alpert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 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: Taxpayers replaced a condemned office building with apartment buildings. The court rejected the IRS’s ‘functional test’ (based on tenants’ use), holding that for a lessor, the ‘similar or related in service or use’ test under § 1033 focuses on the taxpayer’s relationship to the properties.
Legal Significance: Established the ‘taxpayer-use’ test for lessors in involuntary conversions under I.R.C. § 1033, focusing on the owner’s management activities and business risks rather than the tenants’ physical use of the property, significantly broadening the scope of qualifying replacement property for investors.
Liant Record, Inc., William I. Alpert and Paula G. Alpert, Abraham Alpert and Sarah Alpert, Jack L. Alpert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The taxpayers owned a 25-story office building in Manhattan, which they held for investment and rented to 82 commercial tenants. In 1953, the City of New York condemned the property. The taxpayers realized a substantial capital gain from the condemnation proceeds. Between 1955 and 1956, they reinvested these proceeds into three separate apartment buildings, which they also held for rental income. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a tax deficiency, arguing that the gain was recognizable because the replacement properties were not ‘similar or related in service or use’ to the condemned property as required by § 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Commissioner’s position, upheld by the Tax Court, was that the tenants’ end use of the properties differed (commercial offices vs. residential apartments), thus failing the statute’s ‘functional test.’ The taxpayers did not use or occupy any of the properties themselves; their role was strictly that of a lessor.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For a taxpayer-lessor seeking nonrecognition of gain from an involuntary conversion under § 1033, is the ‘similar or related in service or use’ test determined by the tenants’ physical use of the properties or by the nature of the taxpayer’s service, use, and investment relationship to the properties?
The test is determined by the taxpayer’s relationship to the properties. The 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 reprehende
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
For a taxpayer-lessor seeking nonrecognition of gain from an involuntary conversion under § 1033, is the ‘similar or related in service or use’ test determined by the tenants’ physical use of the properties or by the nature of the taxpayer’s service, use, and investment relationship to the properties?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the 'taxpayer-use' test, which remains the controlling standard 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
Legal Rule
In an involuntary conversion under § 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code, 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
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the Tax Court's rigid application of the 'functional test,' 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,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: For an investor-lessor, the § 1033 “similar or related in