Bissell v. Commissioner

1959 T.C. Memo. 215, 18 T.C.M. 1034, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 32
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 16, 1959
DocketDocket No. 68403.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1959 T.C. Memo. 215 (Bissell v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bissell v. Commissioner, 1959 T.C. Memo. 215, 18 T.C.M. 1034, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 32 (tax 1959).

Opinion

Milton A. and Elsa G. Bissell v. Commissioner.
Bissell v. Commissioner
Docket No. 68403.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1959-215; 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 32; 18 T.C.M. (CCH) 1034; T.C.M. (RIA) 59215;
November 16, 1959
*32 Tom Roof, Esq., for the petitioners. Donald P. Chehock, Esq., for the respondent.

RAUM

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

Respondent determined a deficiency in income tax of petitioners in the amount of $1,284.88 for the year 1953.

The issue is whether the respondent erred in determining that Milton A. Bissell received salary in the amount of $8,000 from the Acme Construction Company during the year 1953.

Findings of Fact

Petitioners, husband and wife, filed their income tax return for the calendar year 1953 with the district director of internal revenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Milton A. Bissell (hereinafter referred to as "Bissell") has been a practicing attorney for many years.

In April 1952, Bissell and Paul E. Guerin (hereinafter referred to as "Guerin") decided to form the Acme Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as "Acme") to engage in the construction of residences and other real estate activities. Acme, which was incorporated in April, 1952, operated on a fiscal year ended April 30, and kept its books on an accrual basis of accounting.

During the fiscal years ended April 30, 1953, and April 30, 1954, Acme constructed homes, in the $25,000*33 price bracket, at the rate of about one per month. In the fiscal year ended April 30, 1953, its gross business amounted to $191,843.31, and in the fiscal year ended April 30, 1954, to $284,671.31. Most of its gross revenue was derived from the sale of houses.

Bissell and Guerin each contributed $20,000 to the capital of Acme and each received 200 shares of its stock having a par value of $100 a share. 1 Bissell's contribution consisted of $10,000 cash and his interest in a lot known as Lot No. 7 of Alta Hacienda on which was placed a value of $10,000. Guerin's contribution consisted of $5,500 cash, two trucks valued at $2,550, other construction equipment valued at $1,890, office equipment valued at $509.09, small hand tools valued at $150, various other supplies valued at $100, and a lot known as No. 3 in Delores Tract valued at $14,000 which had an outstanding mortgage against it of $4,699.09.

At all times material herein Guerin was president and general manager of Acme. His wife, Mary L. Guerin, in addition to performing the duties of secretary-treasurer, kept the books of the corporation. *34 She received assistance and advice in keeping the books, when necessary, from Norman E. Penquite, an experienced accountant employed by Acme in an advisory capacity. Penquite made the opening and closing entries on its books and prepared its income tax return for the year ended April 30, 1953. Bissell, the vice president and legal advisor of the corporation, used his credit connections with a Phoenix bank to make the necessary financial arrangements for Acme in its real estate activities. Bissell had good bank credit and was able to arrange for loans needed by the corporation. He also prepared the minutes of meetings of its board of directors.

The first meeting of the board of directors of Acme was held on May 1, 1952. The following is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting:

"At a director's meeting held on above date at the office of Acme Construction Corporation at which all of the directors were present, to wit: Paul B. Guerin, Mary L. Guerin, M. A. Bissell and Elsa G. Bissell, a general discussion took place as to payment of salaries, if any, to the officers and directors of the corporation. It was the unanimous consensus of opinion that the officers would draw no salaries*35 except out of profits. It was determined and decided that salaries should be voted to the directors and that they commence May 1, 1952 but only to be actually paid as authorized by a majority of the board of directors and out of actual profits. It was therefore, upon motion of Paul B. Guerin, duly seconded by M. A. Bissell, decided and resolution unanimously adopted as follows:

"Resolved that the following officers shall be paid for their services to the corporation the amounts hereinafter set after their names and said salaries shall be paid only out of the corporation profits. Said salaries are to be paid only when specifically authorized by a majority of the board of directors. It is understood and intended that no salaries are to be paid except as a draw against profits. In addition to the foregoing salaries it is further resolved that should the corporation profits in any one year, before salaries, exceed $40,000.00 that each of the officers may receive as a bonus a proportionate amount up to but not in excess of the amount of his basic salary as follows:

"Paul B. Guerin - $1,000.00 per month (President); M. A. Bissell - $500.00 per month (Vice-President); Mary L. Guerin - *36 $500.00 per month (Secretary & Treasurer)".

At the time Acme commenced business its directors orally agreed that each of its officers would receive a fixed salary which was set up on its books, that any drawings of cash made by an officer and any amounts for merchandise purchased through Acme in his behalf would be charged to an account receivable for such officer, and that when it was determined that there were profits to offset such drawings for cash or merchandise, the account receivable would be transferred to the officer's salary account. As the business progressed and it was known that there were adequate profits to pay salaries, drawings by officers were charged directly to their salary accounts.

The drawings for cash or merchandise made by officers during the year ended April 30, 1953, appearing on the books of Acme as accounts receivable, were at the end of that year charged to the salary accounts of the officers by Penquite. Drawings for cash or merchandise by Bissell charged to his salary account under date of April 30, 1953, amounted to $2,098.65, and those charged to the salary accounts of the Guerins amounted to $6,151.58. The books of Acme as of April 30, 1953, contained*37

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

Related

Reub Isaacs & Co. v. Commissioner
1 B.T.A. 45 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1959 T.C. Memo. 215, 18 T.C.M. 1034, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bissell-v-commissioner-tax-1959.