Bear Valley Mutual Water Company v. Riddell

283 F. Supp. 949, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1207, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11643
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 22, 1968
Docket64-1499
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 283 F. Supp. 949 (Bear Valley Mutual Water Company v. Riddell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bear Valley Mutual Water Company v. Riddell, 283 F. Supp. 949, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1207, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11643 (C.D. Cal. 1968).

Opinion

DECISIQN, FINDINGS OF FACT, and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

HAUK, District Judge.

This is an action in three counts brought against the United States District Director of Internal Revenue, Los Angeles District, by a non-profit mutual water company for refund of a total of approximately $31,000 in Federal corporate income taxes which, it is alleged, were erroneously and illegally assessed, collected by the Government and overpaid by the taxpayer water company for the three fiscal years ending October 31 of 1958, 1959 and 1960. Jurisdiction is vested in the Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1340 1 and 1346(a) (1). 2 Venue is properly laid in this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1402 3 since plaintiff filed the appropriate and timely claims for refund required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 7422. 4

*951 The Government resists the action on three alternative theories: (1) that the water company received taxable income equivalent to the difference between the *952 cost or fair market value of the water distributed to shareholders and the price charged therefor (which was nothing); (2) that the water company received taxable income because the costs and expenses of the water company incurred in providing water to shareholders without charge to them was not deductible; or (3) that all the amounts paid by shareholders as “assessments” should be included in taxable income.

After a one-day trial upon extensive evidence introduced almost entirely by stipulation and supplemented by the relatively short oral testimony of the secretary-treasurer of the water company, the Court took the matter under submission. Now, having considered all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the . contentions and arguments of the parties and the respective points and authorities relied upon by them, the Court makes its Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

DECISION

Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (hereinafter “water company”) seeks a refund of income taxes collected from it as follows:

Taxable Period Tax Interest Total

Fiscal Year Ending:

October 31,1958 $11,064.15 $2,151.29 $13,215.44

October 31,1959 6,759.85 908.78 7,668.63

October 31,1960 10,205.86 759.71 10,965.57

The controversy arises from the water company’s long standing practice of distributing water to its shareholders without charge, except for assessments levied from time to time with respect to each issued and outstanding share of stock. The costs and expenses of gathering, impounding and distributing the water are considerable, but revenue derived from land sales, leases, boat rentals, interest, assessments and other miscellaneous sources has been sufficient to defray the costs and expenses, thus permitting the water company to maintain the practice of distributing water to its shareholders without charge except for assessments. The Government proposes to tax the water company upon the value of the benefit resulting to its shareholders, and upon the assessment paid to it by the shareholders.

Government’s First Contention

It is contended that the water company realizes income each year in an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value of the water distributed and the amount received by it from its shareholders for the water. The difficulty with the proposition is that it would require the water company to pay tax upon income that it does not receive and is not entitled to receive.

The proposition is, nevertheless, said to be established by the concurring opinion of Judge Withey in Anaheim Union Water Co. v. C.I.R., 35 T.C. 1072, 1081 (1961), Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Co. v. C.I.R., 303 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1962) and Eastern Carbon Black Co. v. Brast, 104 F.2d 460 (4th Cir. 1939). Upon analysis, only the concurring opin *953 ion of Judge Withey supports the proposition.

We find no support in Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co. v. C.I.R., supra. That case involved only a determination of the obligations of shareholders to a corporation under agreements dated 1882 and 1947. Once it was determined that the shareholders were obligated to pay the full cost of furnishing the services and facilities and, therefore, that the corporation was entitled to receive that amount from the shareholders, all that remained to be done was application to the established facts of an elementary principle of tax accounting, i. e., under an accrual method of accounting, income is includible in gross income when all the events have occurred which fix the right to receive such income and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy. I.R.C.1954, § 451, Treasury Regulations, § 1.451-1. The Court itself expressed it this way (303 F.2d p. 802) :

“We have held that these undisputed amounts credited to the shareholders were improperly omitted from income because absent such credits these amounts were otherwise payable by the shareholders pursuant to their various leases and thus reflected income which legally accrued to taxpayer.”

That case with respect to this issue was factually novel but legally commonplace.

Likewise, there is nothing in Eastern Carbon Black Co. v. Brast, supra, that supports the proposition. The corporation was a manufacturer of carbon black. The stock was owned by two companies. Sales of the corporation were controlled by one of the stockholders and production by the other. The shareholder in control of sales caused a contract to be entered into between the corporation and himself requiring the corporation to deliver carbon black to him for a period of six years at the price of five cents per pound.

During the period of the contract, the market price of carbon black greatly increased, reaching at one point eleven cents per pound. Even though the market price greatly increased, the shareholder continued to take carbon black at the contract price and, in addition, took a substantial number of pounds at the contract price over and above the amount specified in the contract.

The other stockholder complained that marketplace sales would produce greater revenue for the corporation. The two stockholders reached agreement as follows: (1) that the stockholder would pay $50,000 to the other non-purchasing shareholder, (2) that present inventory and all future production would be sold equally to the two shareholders at four cents per pound and (3) that any outstanding contracts of sale would be assigned to the non-purchasing shareholder who would fulfill the contracts and account to the purchasing shareholder for one-half of the profit realized from fulfilling the contracts.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F. Supp. 949, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1207, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bear-valley-mutual-water-company-v-riddell-cacd-1968.