Brainard v. Scofield

140 F. Supp. 754, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1280, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1968
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Texas
DecidedDecember 15, 1953
DocketCiv. A. No. 616
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 F. Supp. 754 (Brainard v. Scofield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brainard v. Scofield, 140 F. Supp. 754, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1280, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1968 (W.D. Tex. 1953).

Opinion

RICE, Chief Judge.

This action having been tried by the Court without a jury, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

I.

A. I. Brainard and Charles Paggi,both of Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas, J. L. Shakely and Robert McCoy, both of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and H. H. Wilson of Houston, Harris County, Texas, are the duly constituted Trustees in liquidation of the Iron Works Company of Beaumont (“Beaumont”), now dissolved. Frank Scofield was at all times here involved, Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of Texas, and resides in Travis County, Texas. Frank Scofield was the Collector to whom the taxes involved in the action herein described were paid. The cause arises under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to whether Beaumont is entitled to an excess profits credit carry back from 1946 to 1944.

II.

Beaumont was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas and had its principal place of business in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. The purpose clause of the Iron Works Company of Beaumont on the date of its incorporation and at all times pertinent was as follows:

The purpose for which said corporation is formed is the transaction of a manufacturing business, by the manufacture of iron, steel, manganese, coke, copper, brass, lumber and other materials and all, or any, articles consisting or partly consisting of iron, steel, copper, wood or other materials, and all or any products thereof; and the purchase and sale of goods, wares and merchandise used for such business.

Beaumont manufactured oil well drilling and pumping equipment and steel castings. Said corporation' was formerly named Beaumont Iron Works Company, its name having been changed on October 30, 1945. With the consent of the requisite number of shareholders of said [756]*756corporation, said corporation on November 13, 1945, filed a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State of the State of Texas. All of the above named persons were directors of said corporation and became the Trustees in liquidation (W. M. Crook of Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas, who is now deceased, was also a Trustee in liquidation), and as such are authorized to in? stitute the action herein described for the use and benefit of the shareholders of said corporation.

III.

By agreement dated September 5, 1945, Beaumont sold to American Locomotive Company (“American”) all of its inventory of raw materials, work in progress and finished goods, plant site, buildings, and. equipment and furniture and fixtures for a total consideration of $330,807.90, as of the close of business on September 30, 1945 and thereby terminated its manufacturing business. This sale agreement provided, among other things, as follows:

“(a) Beaumont agreed to hold American harmless from all loss and claims by reason of a defect in any •item.
“(b) Beaumont assumed all liability for renegotiation of sales contracts with the United States Government and for defective material and workmanship with respect to shipments made prior to the close of business on September 30, 1945, and with respect to all Work, completed prior to September 30, 1945.
“(c) Beaumont remained liable for all sums due and owing under purchase orders or contracts on items delivered prior to closing.
• ■ “(d) -Any Accounts Receivable • before September 30, 1945 would be collected by American for the acr count .of. Beaumont but uncollect-, able, .accounts-would be reassigned to / Beaumont.
•“(e). Beaumont either,had to pay* prior to September 30th all of its creditors or deposit in the bank a • sum equal to. the amount of all unpaid indebtedness. It must deposit cash or United States Tax Notes in an amount equal to Federal Income and Excess Profits Taxes.
“(f) Beaumont had to change its name.”

The closing date thereafter was extended to November 3, 1945 and at that time a Closing Agreement and Escrow Contract was entered into between Beaumont and American. In the Escrow Contract it was represented by Beaumont that it had paid and discharged all amounts payable to its creditors except for certain expenses incurred in the usual course of business since September 30, 1945, and certain debts contingent in nature and undetermined in amount, consisting of Federal Income and Excess Profits Taxes, renegotiation of contractual income for 1944 and 1945, professional services, other taxes, severance allowance, traveling expenses in connection with renegotiation, service fees, and travel and other fees in connection with litigation. It was estimated that these items came to a total of approximately $185,000. It was further represented that Beaumont had paid income and excess profits taxes for 1943 and prior years and that the tax returns filed were believed to be correct but certain amounts remained to be paid on such taxes. In consequence of the .above representations $130,000 was deposited with the Escrow Bank, together with $55,000 in United States securities in order that American could be protected. The es-crowed funds were to be used, insofar as necessary, for the payment of .the items set forth above. Before any money could be disbursed by the Escrow Agent,"there must be a letter from the Collector of Internal Revenue or the creditor specifying the amount and the basis of the obligation and it had to be approved by American.'. The settlement of these business matters occurred during 1946.. On October 4, 1946 American advised the Escrow Agent that all of the provisions incident to the escrow deposit [757]*757had been fulfilled and the escrow account was closed.

IV.

Three distributions in liquidation of the corporation were made as follows:

(a) The first distribution was authorized at a meeting of the Trustees in'liquidation on April 19, 1946, in the gross amount of $595,000.
(b) The second distribution was authorized at a meeting of the Trustees in liquidation on December 10, 1946, for distribution immediately .upon cashing of certain United States Treasury Tax Notes. The checks were dated January 15, 1947, in the gross amount of $179,634.95.
(c) The third and final 'distribution was authorized at a meeting of the Trustees in liquidation on May 18, 1948, in the gross amount of $4,200

V.

As of January 1, 1946, Beaumont’s balance sheet reflected assets of $812,-286, including $606,792 cash in banks and on hand and $57,777 in accounts receivable which were collected during the year 1946. , The balance of the, assets consisted of' $122,717 cash and $25,000 United States Treasury Notes Tax Series C held in escrow pending fulfillment of the escrow agreement described in Finding of Fact III.

VI.

As of January 1, 1946, Beaumont’s balance sheet showed liabilities of $36,-248, and -that such liabilities were liquidated during 1946.

VII.

Beaumont had gross revenue of $393.12 and expenses of $6,213.04 for the calendar year 1946.

VIII.

During 1946 the Bureau of Internal Revenue audited .the .'income tax returns for Beaumont for 1943, 1944 &

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 F. Supp. 754, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1280, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brainard-v-scofield-txwd-1953.