1 / 7

United States v. Stafford

United States v. Stafford. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1984 727 F. 2d 1043. History. Judge: R. Lanier Anderson III District court, then 11 th circuit reverses Facts similar to James V. Comm. Stafford has rights to develop land Needs funding, gets investors to buy in

emmy
Download Presentation

United States v. Stafford

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. United States v. Stafford United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1984 727 F. 2d 1043

  2. History • Judge: R. Lanier Anderson III • District court, then 11th circuit reverses • Facts similar to James V. Comm. • Stafford has rights to develop land • Needs funding, gets investors to buy in • 20 Units sold at 100K each in Ltd.

  3. History cont. • Transfer of letter of intent from LOG • Stafford has the rights to this development • Is an option “property” to be exchanged? • Since partnership Sec. 721 is at issue.

  4. LOG offers Stafford rights to develop land Stafford forms Ltd. to raise 25% of capital Transfers letter of intent to Ltd. Under 721 Ltd. Obtains financing for 75% from LOG Ltd. Develops land and Leases back to LOG

  5. Issue • Under 721, what qualifies as property? • Money, land, and certain intangibles eg. Trade secrets • In this case, the letter was to Petitioner • In James case, the FHA is to Corp. • Timing issue arises although not discussed in the case. • Exchange and Property requirements

  6. Holding • Letter does qualify as property • Stafford performed services, not for Ltd. • Services prior to forming Ltd. • Leads to tangible property which he transfers into Ltd. • “the Code is designed to prevent the mere change in form from precipitating taxation.”

  7. Reasoning • James transferred property to the corp. that was never really his • Letter was exchanged, just as money or land would be. • Property should have “Value and enforceability” says lower court • Letter has Substantial commitment • Property is similar to goodwill or know-how

More Related