Briggs Co. v. Commissioner

5 T.C.M. 366, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 194
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 14, 1946
DocketDocket No. 6582.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 T.C.M. 366 (Briggs Co. 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
Briggs Co. v. Commissioner, 5 T.C.M. 366, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 194 (tax 1946).

Opinion

The Briggs Company v. Commissioner.
Briggs Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 6582.
United States Tax Court
1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 194; 5 T.C.M. (CCH) 366; T.C.M. (RIA) 46109;
May 14, 1946
Thomas J. Bailey, Esq., 1102 Olds Tower, Lansing 8, Mich., for the petitioner. Clarence E. Price, Esq., for the respondent.

HILL

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

HILL, Judge: Respondent has determined deficiencies in petitioner's income and excess profits tax liability for the years 1940 to 1942, inclusive, as follows:

Excess Profits
Income TaxTax
1940$ 729.80
1941173.23$3,095.99
19421,023.95

Petitioner having conceded certain adjustments, the only question remaining is whether certain securities issued by petitioner created an indebtedness on account of which petitioner paid deductible interest or whether such securities constituted preferred stock on account of which petitioner paid non-deductible dividends.

Petitioner filed its*195 returns for the taxable years with the collector of internal revenue for the Eastern District of Michigan. The record consists of a stipulation of facts and exhibits. The facts, as stipulated, are so found. Other findings are based on the exhibits.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner is a Michigan corporation with its principal office at 400-406 East Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. It was organized in 1907 for the purpose of "the buying and selling of hay, grain, building supplies and other like commodities and merchandise".

On August 12, 1921, petitioner amended its Articles of Association. This amendment provided in part as follows:

The Capital stock of the Corporation is the sum of $400,000.00, of which $140,000.00 shall be Common Stock and $260,000.00 shall be Preferred Stock.

The number of shares into which the Capital Stock is divided is 40,000 shares of the par value of $10.00 each.

The Preferred Stock shall be subject to redemption at par on the first day of January A.D. 1935 and the holder shall be entitled to a dividend of 8 per cent per annum, payable quarterly on the second days of January, April, July and October, which shall be cumulative and payable before any*196 dividend shall be set apart or paid on the Common Stock. The Preferred Stockholers shall not be entitled to vote for directors.

The Preferred Stock shall be preferred, both as to dividends and assets.

This amendment also provided for the establishment and maintenance of a preferred stock redemption fund equal to seven per cent of the total amount of preferred stock issued and outstanding. At the option of preferred stockholders, on proper application, this fund was available for annual redemption of preferred stock.

It also provided that:

If the Company should fail for a period of thirty days to pay any dividends due on Preferred Stock, or maintain a sound ratio of quick assets to its current liabilities or shall fail to provide sufficient cash to pay its Preferred Stock Redemption applications when due, or shall fail to cumulate sufficient cash surplus before paying cash dividends on the Common Stock, then in such case or either of them, the Preferred Stock issued and outstanding shall have full voting rights and privileges with the Common Stock.

This amendment stated that the total amount of common stock paid-in in cash was $116,200, and the amount of preferred stock actually*197 paid-in in property was $181,000.

By further amendment to petitioner's Articles of Association, effective January 2, 1929, all the common par value stock previously issued was surrendered and cancelled and no par common stock was issued in lieu thereof, share for share.

On January 27, 1937, pursuant to the Michigan Corporation Code and because of the imminent expiration of the corporate term, petitioner filed "Articles of Incorporation Extending Corporate Term." By these articles, petitioner's capital structure retained the 14,000 common no par stock created by the 1929 amendment. The 26,000 preferred shares authorized by the 1921 amendment were reduced in number to 11,000 authorized shares but otherwise retained all their former attributes. These articles also authorized 14,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $10 a share.

These articles stated that of the 11,000 authorized shares of preferred stock, 8,529 were outstanding; of the 14,000 authorized shares of common no par value stock 10,295 shares were outstanding, and of the 14,000 authorized shares of common $10 par stock no shares were outstanding. The paid-in capital of the company at that time was stated to be*198 in the amount of $188,240.

Petitioner defaulted in the payment of dividends on its preferred stock in the last quarter of 1927 and continuously thereafter. On January 1, 1935, at which time the preferred stock was subject to redemption, petitioner defaulted with respect to the matured principal of such stock. Consequently, under the terms of petitioner's charter, the preferred stockholders had equal voting privileges with the common stockholders from 1927 and thereafter.

Petitioner's liability on its outstanding preferred stock as of December 31, 1938 and 1939 was as follows:

19381939
Principal$85,290.00$74,290.00

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

Related

Sayles Finishing Plants, Inc. v. The United States
399 F.2d 214 (Court of Claims, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 T.C.M. 366, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-co-v-commissioner-tax-1946.