Alderson v. Commissioner
Open-knowledge reference entry
Alderson v. Commissioner, 317 F.2d 790 (9th Cir. 1963) was a tax law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling of the United States Tax Court that an exchange of properties does not constitute a taxable sale under § 1031(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Facts
The petitioners of the case, comprising James Alderson and the estate of his wife Clarissa ("Alderson"), owned a property entitled “Buena Park”. They formed a deal with Alloy Die Casting Company (“Alloy”) in which they intended to sell the property to the company. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners discovered a different property (“Salinas”) which they wanted to obtain in exchange for Buena Park. They arranged a deal with Alloy whereby Alloy would purchase Salinas and then exchange it for Buena Park. The petitioners would then give Alloy any discrepancy in the form of cash. The deal further stipulated that if Alloy could not acquire the property by September 11, 1957, the petitioners would sell Buena Park to them and then purchase Salinas themselves. Eventually, Alloy did purchase Salinas and the properties were exchanged.
“Alderson v. Commissioner” enters the record as open-knowledge reference entry. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Alderson, Commissioner and Open-knowledge can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Alderson v. Commissioner” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Alderson, Commissioner and Open-knowledge provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4713750. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1963, 1031 and 1957.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Alderson v. Commissioner”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Alderson v. Commissioner primary sources, Alderson v. Commissioner archive and Alderson research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Alderson v. Commissioner”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Alderson v. Commissioner” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.