Confirm favorite deletion?
Income Tax Keyed to Lind
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co
Facts
Glenshaw Glass manufactures glass bottles and containers and was in litigation with the Hartford-Empire Company, which manufactures machinery used by Glenshaw. Glenshaw made demands for exemplary damages for fraud and treble damages for injury to its business for Hartford’s violations of antitrust laws. The parties settled and Glenshaw received $800,000. Of that, $324,529.94 represented punitive damages. Glenshaw did not report that amount as income. In Commissioner v. William Goldman Theatres, Inc., William Goldman sued Loew’s Inc. for violations of antitrust law and sought treble damages. William Goldman received $375,000 in treble damages but claimed $250,000 of that represented punitive damages and did not report it as income.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.