Burghart v. Commissioner
This text of 45 B.T.A. 339 (Burghart v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[341]*341OPINION.
The sole question for decision is whether the gains received during 1938 by petitioners on liquidation of the Bates & Rogers Construction Co. are to be taxed under the 1936 Act or under the 1938 Act. Petitioners contend that the 1936 Act governs and tha.t under section 117 (a) of that act1 30 percent of the liquidation gain of $36,331.94 should be included in computing petitioners’ net income. Respondent determined that the 1938 Act should govern and in accordance with section 117 (b) of that act2 included 50 percent of the gain.
Petitioners first argue that the legislative history of section 115 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1936,3 which deals with distributions made in complete liquidation of a corporation, shows an intent that the 1936 Act should govern all distributions under a plan of complete liquidation if the first distribution was made under the 1936 Act. We have searched the legislative history and are unable to find any such intent manifested. The report of the House Ways and Means Committee states that the change from recognition under the 1934 Act of the entire gain on liquidation to recognition on a percentage basis was [342]*342made to encourage liquidations. There is nothing to indicate an intention on the part of the legislators that the 1936 Act should apply to all liquidations begun under it. Nor do we believe that such an interpretation would be reasonable.
Petitioners argue further that a reasonable interpretation of section 115 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1938 4 makes the 1936 Act govern distributions made pursuant to a plan of liquidation promulgated prior to the effective date of the 1938 Act. That argument must be rejected. The portion of section 115 (c) of the 1938 Act which draws a distinction between liquidations begun before January 1, 1938, and those begun after December 31, 1937, as regards the length of time within which distribution and liquidation must be completed, was added by amendment on the floor of the Senate. The explanation given does not indicate an intent that .the 1936 Act should apply throughout the liquidations commenced under it.
Not only did Congress fail to indicate an intent that the provisions of the 1936 Act should apply, but it was within the power of Congress to apply the increased percentage of gain on distributions made during 1938. It is well established that a taxpayer has no vested right in existing rates of taxation. As we pointed out in Prudential Tobacco Co., 42 B. T. A. 518, 520:
* * * That case [Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134] and United States v. Hudson, 299 U. S. 498, indicate that taxpayers must be deemed to be forewarned of the possibility of changes in rates, classifications, deductions, and credits in the income tax laws. * * *
See also Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15.
The gains received by petitioners by reason of distributions made during 1938 were taxable under the 1938 Act and respondent properly included 50 percent of such gains in determining petitioners’ net income.
Decision will be entered for the respondent'.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 B.T.A. 339, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burghart-v-commissioner-bta-1941.