Nix v. Hedden the respondent and found that the tomato should be classified under the customs regulations as a vegetable, based on the ways in which it is used, and the popular perception to this end. Justice Horace Gray, writing the opinion for the Court, stated that: Justice Gray, citing several Supreme Court cases ("Brown v. Piper," 91 U.S. 37, 42, and "Jones v. U.S.," 137 U.S. 202, 216) stated that when words have acquired no special meaning in trade or commerce, the ordinary meaning must be used by the court. In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as
Alderson v. Commissioner holding is reversed. (Note: The court did not discuss whether the properties were in fact like-kind because the point was never refuted by the Tax Court). The court held that because the properties were indeed exchanged, they are subject to nonrecognition of gain under § 1031. First, the court used the case of "Commissioner v. Court Holding Co." There, it was determined that for tax purposes: The incidence taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction. The tax consequences which arise from gains from a sale of property are not finally to be determined solely by the means employed to