Talk:Frank Lyon Co. v. United States
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Lyon Co. v. United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis article completely misses the varied points actually made in Frank Lyon. This case was not overturned by the TRA of 1986 and is still used in law school to illustrate problems with determining tax ownership, substance over form, and the equity verses debt connundrum. This article illustrates the point that tax law should not be left to laymen. This article should be completely overhauled or deleted. Lawtaxecon (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Random thoughts
editLater, this article can be reworked to delete the long quote from the syllabus. The fact summary can be reworked. There probably also needs to be a more specific brief description of the procedural history and the precise issues presented to and decided by the Court. Famspear (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a great article written by Bernie Wolfman that I just read. It is riveting. I also have some correspondence between S.G. Erwin Griswold and Wolfman. Hammer of the year (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Hammer of the year: Sounds like you have material! Famspear (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)