Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. United States Case Brief

United States Court of Claims1954Docket #2459976
126 F. Supp. 184 130 Ct. Cl. 166 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1293 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 3

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

General Brief
4 min read

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.

Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. United States 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 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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

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
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. Excep

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+