Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. United States 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 exchanged a bridge for a 10-year franchise extension. The court ruled that the cost basis of the new franchise for tax purposes is its fair market value at the time of the exchange, not the undepreciated cost of the bridge.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the fundamental tax principle that in a taxable exchange of property, the cost basis of the property received is its fair market value at the time of the exchange.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The taxpayer, Philadelphia Park Amusement Co., operated a railway under a franchise from the City of Philadelphia. In 1934, the taxpayer transferred ownership of the Strawberry Bridge, a railway asset, to the City. In exchange, the City granted the taxpayer a 10-year extension of its railway franchise. At the time of the exchange, the bridge had an undepreciated cost (adjusted basis) of $228,852.74. The taxpayer did not report any gain or loss from this transaction in 1934. Instead, it wrote the bridge’s value off its books by a direct debit to surplus. In 1946, the taxpayer abandoned the railway and franchise. In its tax return for that year, it claimed an abandonment loss, calculating the franchise’s basis by including the $228,852.74 undepreciated cost of the bridge. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed this portion of the loss, arguing it was not the proper cost basis for the franchise extension. The taxpayer sued for a refund, contending that the undepreciated cost of the bridge should be treated as the cost of the franchise extension, which could then be amortized and ultimately claimed as a loss upon abandonment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a taxable exchange of property for other property, is the cost basis of the property received its fair market value at the time of the exchange, or is it the adjusted basis of the property given up?
Yes. The cost basis of the 10-year franchise extension is its fair 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 no
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
In a taxable exchange of property for other property, is the cost basis of the property received its fair market value at the time of the exchange, or is it the adjusted basis of the property given up?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear and enduring rule for basis calculation in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
The cost basis of property received in a taxable exchange is the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the definition of 'cost' as used for 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a taxable property-for-property exchange, the cost basis of the property