Bologna v. Donnelly

112 F. Supp. 533, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1046, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2804
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedApril 30, 1953
DocketCiv. A. No. 2991
StatusPublished

This text of 112 F. Supp. 533 (Bologna v. Donnelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bologna v. Donnelly, 112 F. Supp. 533, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1046, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2804 (E.D. La. 1953).

Opinion

CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

The above entitled cause having come on for final hearing on the pleadings and proofs of the respective parties, and-having been argued by respective counsel, the Court being fully informed in the premises, after due deliberation makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

I.

Giuseppe Bologna (also referred to as Joe Bologna), and his' wife, Mrs. Giuseppe Bologna (Antonina Bologna), and Eustácho Bologna (also referred to as Eugene Bologna), and his wife, Mrs. Eugene Bologna (Mary Lungaro Bologna), plaintiffs in this action, are all citizens of the United States and residents of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; and plaintiffs have all had such citizenship and residence during all the taxable years involved in this action and for many years prior thereto.

II.

During all the taxable years involved in this action, Charles A. Donnelly, defendant, resided and now resides in New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, in the New Orleans Division of the Eastern District [534]*534of Louisiana within the jurisdiction of this Court. During the same time, and especially since prior to June 24, 1949, defendant was Collector of Internal Revenue of the United States for the District of Louisiana, and continued to hold such position until after this action was begun.

III.

For several years prior to September 30, 1942, Giuseppe Bologna and Eustachio Bologna were- the sole partners, in equal shares, in a business partnership in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, known as Bologna Bros. Each of the partners had been married to his respective wife prior to the formation of this partnership. The partnership was engaged in the wholesale whiskey, beer and wine business and in the wholesale and retail grocery business.

IV.

Mr. and Mrs. Giuseppe Bologna were and are the parents of four (4) children, namely: Frank G. Bologna, Frances Ann Bologna (now Mrs. Vincent J. Serio), Antonio Joseph Bologna, and Eleonora Marie Bologna. Mr. and Mrs. Eustachio Bologna were and are the parents of three' (3) children, namely: Francis Marion Bologna, Frances Teresa Bologna (now Mrs. John L. Barcelona) and Pietra Ann Bologna (now Mrs. Samuel A. Brocato, Jr.).

V.

On September 30, 1942, Mr. and Mrs. Giuseppe Bologna donated in trust, to each of their children as. beneficiary, each child then-being,a minor, a one-twentieth (%o) interest.- in the business known as Bologna Bros., and on. the same date Mr.-and Mrs; Eustachio- Bologna donated in trust to each of, their children,as beneficiary, each of .the said children then being a minor, a one-fifteenth (%g) .interest in the business known as Bologna Bros. Each of-the donations was by formal written instrument before a Notary Public and two witnesses. In each of the trusts created by Mr. and Mrs. Giuseppe Bologna, Eustachio Bologna and Calogero Lungaro were appointed trustees; and in each of the trusts. created by Mr. and Mrs. Eustachio Bologna, Giuseppe Bologna and Calogero Lungaro were appointed trustees. Each of the donations was specifically stated to be irrevocable, and the trusts created were to endure until the twenty-first birthday of each respective beneficiary. Among other provisions, each of the trust instruments provided that no part of the trust property nor the income therefrom should be distributed by the trustees, and the trustees were expressly prohibited from using any of the trust property or income during the period of the trust for the education, support or maintenance of the beneficiaries or either of them.

VI.

Prior to making the donations to their children, Mr. and Mrs. Giuseppe Bologna had discussed the idea of making such gifts to their children, and Mr. and Mrs. Eustachio Bologna had likewise discussed the idea of making such gifts, and Giuseppe and Eustachio Bologna had also talked the matter over between themselves. According to these discussions, the idea and purpose of each of the donors in making such gifts was to provide an incentive to each of their children to continue in the prosperous business established by their parents, and to encourage stability and family harmony in the business. There were no discussions whatsoever of any purpose or intent to avoid taxes through the use of such gifts. After the plaintiffs herein had decidfed to make such gifts, Giuseppe and Eustachio Bologna instructed their attorney and their auditor to do what was necessary to carry out their decision.

Gift tax,returns on.thqse.gifts were filed and the -tax paid; additional gift Tax assessments were made as a result of a. decision of the Tax Court ,of the- United, States and these assessments were also paid.

VII.

In the supimer of 1943,: during the first year of the existence of the trust, Mr. Lumgaro, who was the father of Mrs. Eustachio Bologna, became seriously ill and unable to, perform any functions as trustee, and, found it necessary to resign his position as such. At the same time, Giuseppe Bologna and Eustachio Bologna also resigned as co-trustee of their respective trusts, and; [535]*535Mr. Charles Cangelosi, a resident of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, was named as trustee for each of the trusts for the children of both Giuseppe Bologna and Eustachio Bologna, in accordance with the provision of the original trust agreements. A formal written instrument, before a Notary Public and two witnesses, was executed for this purpose. At the time of his appointment, and at the present time, Mr. Charles Cangelosi was and is a very successful business man in Baton Rouge, owning considerable property, and being the manager of the Baton Rouge Ice Company, a partnership in which both Giuseppe and Eugene Bologna were partners, and serving, among other capacities, as a Director of the City National Bank of Baton Rouge, and of the Union Federal Savings and Loan Association of Baton Rouge.

VIII.

Beginning September 30, 1942, it was the intention and purpose of all the parties concerned with the partnership known as Bologna Bros., that is, Giuseppe Bologna and Eugene Bologna, the original partners, together with the trustees of each of the trusts which had been created, to continue to carry on the business known as Bologna Bros, as a partnership composed of themselves, and the business was so continued. After Mr. Charles Cangelosi became trustee of the trusts, it was the intention and purpose of Giuseppe Bologna, Eustachio Bologna and Charles Cangelosi, that the business be carried on as a partnership composed of Giuseppe Bologna, Eustachio Bologna, and Charles Cangelosi as- trustee for each of the trusts, and the business was so continued.

IX.

After the creation of the trusts, and the continuation of the business as a new partnership, Giuseppe and Eustachio Bologna continued as managing partners- in the business, Giuseppe Bologna being generally in charge of the whiskey business and Eustachio Bologna generally in charge of the grocery and produce business. Mr. Lungaro, for the one-year period, and then Mr. Cangelosi, as trustee and partner, did not attempt to manage or interfere with any of the operating details of the business, but did maintain general supervision over the interests of the trusts in the business. After his appointment, Mr. Cangelosi visited the place of business of Bologna Bros, occasionally, every two weeks to a month, to see how business was getting along.

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

Related

Helvering v. Clifford
309 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Commissioner v. Culbertson
337 U.S. 733 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Ginsburg Et Ux. v. Arnold
185 F.2d 913 (Fifth Circuit, 1950)
United States v. Atkins
191 F.2d 951 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Alexander v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
194 F.2d 921 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Seabrook v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
196 F.2d 322 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Turner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
199 F.2d 913 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Atkins v. United States
86 F. Supp. 342 (W.D. Louisiana, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F. Supp. 533, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1046, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bologna-v-donnelly-laed-1953.