Connection lost
Server error
Acm Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner, in No. 97-7484 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Acm Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in No. 97-7527 Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 partnership engaged in a complex, pre-planned series of transactions designed to generate a massive capital loss to offset a partner’s prior gain. The court disallowed the artificial loss, finding the transactions were a sham that lacked economic substance and a legitimate non-tax business purpose.
Legal Significance: This is a landmark case solidifying the economic substance doctrine’s application to sophisticated corporate tax shelters. It establishes that literal compliance with the Internal Revenue Code is insufficient if a transaction lacks objective economic effect or a subjective non-tax business purpose.
Acm Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner, in No. 97-7484 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Acm Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in No. 97-7527 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
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (“Colgate”) had realized a significant capital gain and sought to shelter it from taxation. Merrill Lynch proposed a strategy using a partnership, ACM, and the contingent installment sale rules. ACM was formed by subsidiaries of Colgate, a Dutch bank (ABN), and Merrill Lynch. In November 1989, ACM used its capital to purchase $205 million in Citicorp notes. Just 24 days later, in a pre-arranged transaction, ACM sold $175 million of the notes for $140 million in cash and a series of contingent-payment LIBOR notes. ACM treated this as an installment sale. Under the applicable ratable basis recovery rule (Temp. Treas. Reg. § 15a.453-1(c)), ACM allocated its basis in the Citicorp notes over six years. This created a large artificial capital gain in the first year, which was primarily allocated to the tax-indifferent foreign partner, ABN. In a subsequent year, the disposition of the LIBOR notes generated a massive artificial capital loss, which was almost entirely allocated to Colgate. The purported non-tax business purposes for the transactions—serving as an interim investment and hedging interest rate risk—were found to be pretextual. Colgate ultimately claimed an $84.5 million capital loss to offset its prior gain.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the series of transactions undertaken by the partnership, which formally complied with the contingent installment sale provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, lack sufficient economic substance to be respected for federal income tax purposes?
Yes. The transactions lacked economic substance and must be disregarded for tax 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the series of transactions undertaken by the partnership, which formally complied with the contingent installment sale provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, lack sufficient economic substance to be respected for federal income tax purposes?
Conclusion
ACM Partnership is a foundational modern economic substance case, demonstrating that courts 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
Legal Rule
A transaction will be disregarded for tax purposes if it lacks economic 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 e
Legal Analysis
The court applied the economic substance doctrine by analyzing both objective and 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, consecte
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A transaction that literally complies with the tax code can be