Briarcliff Candy Corp. v. Commisioner

1972 T.C. Memo. 43, 31 T.C.M. 171, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 214
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1972
DocketDocket No. 5163-68.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1972 T.C. Memo. 43 (Briarcliff Candy Corp. v. Commisioner) 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
Briarcliff Candy Corp. v. Commisioner, 1972 T.C. Memo. 43, 31 T.C.M. 171, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 214 (tax 1972).

Opinion

Briarcliff Candy Corporation (formerly Loft Candy Corporation) v. Commisioner.
Briarcliff Candy Corp. v. Commisioner
Docket No. 5163-68.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1972-43; 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 214; 31 T.C.M. (CCH) 171;
February 22, 1972, Filed
John J. Yurow and John Harllee, Jr., for the petitioner. *215 Rudolph J. Korbel, for the respondent.

SCOTT

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

SCOTT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the taxable year ended June 27, 1959, in the amount of $113,628.03.

The issue for decision is whether petitioner, in computing its net operating loss deduction for its fiscal year 1959, is entitled to a carryback from its fiscal year 1962, determined with a deduction in the later year as ordinary and necessary business expenses, of amounts spent in connection with obtaining new outlets for its products; or whether the expenditures were made in acquiring a capital asset.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Petitioner, Briarcliff Candy Corporation (formerly Loft Candy Corporation), was incorporated in 1939 under the laws of the State of New York. Its principal office at the time of the filing of the petition in this case was at 38-38 Ninth Street, Long Island City, New York. Petitioner's sole production facility was also at this location. During the period ended May 3, 1971, petitioner and its predecessors (which date back to before the turn of the century) *216 were engaged in the manufacture and/or sale of a wide variety of candy and confectionery products consisting principally of boxed and bulk chocolates, and also including specialty candies, hard candies, chocolate bars and nuts. On May 3, 1971, petitioner sold its trademarks, certain plant equipment and machinery, and other business assets to Barricini Stores, Inc., a subsidiary of The Southland Corporation. On the same date petitioner changed its name to Briarcliff Candy Corporation.

Petitioner reports its Federal income tax liability under an accrual method of accounting and files its returns on the basis of a 52-53 week taxable year ending on the Saturday nearest June 30. Petitioner filed its Federal corporation income tax returns for the taxable years ended June 27, 1959 and June 30, 1962, with the district director of internal revenue for the Brooklyn district of New York.

During and prior to the taxable year ended June 30, 1962, more than 80 percent of petitioner's sales were retail sales made through retail candy shops operated by petitioner. The balance of the sales were made at wholesale prices to department stores and other independently owned and operated retail outlets.

*217 During this period, while petitioner's sales volume remained constant, its sales per retail outlet declined as a result of a general change in consumer shopping patterns. There was an apparent trend to suburbanization. Petitioner, as did other candy companies, attempted to retain its customers by opening retail outlets in the suburbs. However, the suburban stores could only achieve a fraction of the sales volume of downtown stores resulting in a proportionately higher operating cost and a lower profit margin. Thus, there developed a general trend in the industry to attempt to locate new channels of distribution and new markets in department stores, greeting card stores, and drugstores in order to increase sales volume, reduce operating costs, and reestablish a satisfactory profit margin.

The following schedule reflects petitioner's operating profit for the 4 fiscal years preceding its fiscal year 1962:

Operating profit
Yearbefore Federal
Ndedincome tax
July 1, 1961$257,390
July 2, 1960612,388
June 27, 1959623,722
June 28, 1958886,614

In the latter part of 1961, petitioner's management instituted a program of soliciting independently operated*218 retail outlets, 172 primarily in drugstores, card stores and the like to establish departments for the distribution of Loft candies. In pursuance of this program, a separate division, then known as the "franchise" division, was established by petitioner under the direction of a vice president. This division, which was staffed with a sales manager, several salesmen and clerical personnel, was assigned the responsibility of (a) soliciting independent drugstores (and other retail outlets) to establish Loft candy departments in their stores, (b) entering into contracts with those stores which desired to participate, and (c) providing continuing services and a flow of merchandise to contracting stores.

The initial step in the foregoing program was an extensive advertising campaign, including the placement of advertising in drugstore trade journals, the preparation of advertising circulars to be mailed to drugstores throughout the country and placing information booths at druggist trade conventions. During the taxable year ended June 30, 1962, petitioner contacted approximately 50,000 independent drugstores through mailings at 6-week intervals. Included in each mailing was a card*219 addressed to petitioner which the drugstore proprietor was requested to fill out and return if he were interested in discussing the franchise program further. Approximately 2,000 response cards were received by petitioner during its fiscal year 1962.

The next step in the program was to make telephone contact with drugstore proprietors who had sent in the response cards to arrange an appointment with one of petitioner's salesmen.

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

Related

Commissioner v. Tellier
383 U.S. 687 (Supreme Court, 1966)
A. Finkenberg's Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 973 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Red Star Yeast & Products Co. v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 321 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Thrifticheck Service Corp. v. Commissioner
33 T.C. 1038 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Shainberg v. Commissioner
33 T.C. 241 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Perlmutter v. Commissioner
44 T.C. 382 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Manhattan Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. Commissioner
50 T.C. 78 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Coors Porcelain Co. v. Commissioner
52 T.C. 682 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
X-Pando Corp. v. Commissioner
7 T.C. 48 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Goodell-Pratt Co. v. Commissioner
3 B.T.A. 30 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1925)
Houston Natural Gas Corp. v. Commissioner
34 B.T.A. 228 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1936)
Colonial Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner
7 B.T.A. 154 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1972 T.C. Memo. 43, 31 T.C.M. 171, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briarcliff-candy-corp-v-commisioner-tax-1972.