In Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. United States, 126 F. Supp. 184 (Ct. Cl. 1954), the United States Court of Claims ruled that the cost basis of property received in a taxable exchange is the fair market value of the property received. Background Strawberry Bridge was owned by the taxpayer and, after it was discovered that the bridge needed significant repairs, the taxpayer gave the bridge to the City of Philadelphia in exchange for a 10-year extension of the taxpayer's railway franchise in Fairmount Park which was owned by the City of Philadelphia. Since the 10-year extension had no market value, the taxpayer used the depreciating bridge as his new basis, then proceeded to claim overpayment of tax due to his failure to claim any depreciation. The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with the taxpayer's reasoning, and disallowed his claim for a larger depreciation deduction. Initially, a disagreement also arose out of the fact that the Commissioner amortized the original cost of the franchise over the period beginning on the date the franchise was granted, while the taxpayer amortized it over the period beginning on the date the railway began operating. However, this disagreement was abandoned by the both parties and is not mentioned in either parties' brief, nor was there any mention of it during the oral arguments. The opinion was written by Judge Laramore, with Judges Madden, Whitaker, Littleton, and Chief Judge Jones all concurring. No concurring opinion was published. Court holding The court found that both Strawberry Bridge and the 10-year exchange had a value and the contract between the taxpayer and the City of Philadelphia had the proper amount of consideration. Looking to §1012 (then §113) of the tax code, which defines basis as the cost of the property the court found that "one view is that the cost basis of property received in a taxable exchange is the fair market value of the property given in the exchange." The reverse, that one could determine the value of the property given by considering the value of the property received, was likewise true. Thus, the court found that in order to maintain harmonization between the different sections of the tax code, it was necessary that the cost basis of the property received be equal to its fair market value at the time of the exchange. Though the taxpayer contested that the value of either the extended franchise or