Central Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner

1968 T.C. Memo. 225, 27 T.C.M. 1100, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 80
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 30, 1968
DocketDocket No. 5418-66.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1968 T.C. Memo. 225 (Central Asphalt Paving 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
Central Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner, 1968 T.C. Memo. 225, 27 T.C.M. 1100, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 80 (tax 1968).

Opinion

Central Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. v. Commissioner.
Central Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 5418-66.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1968-225; 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 80; 27 T.C.M. (CCH) 1100; T.C.M. (RIA) 68225;
September 30, 1968. Filed
John T. Kay, Jr., 511 Charleston National Bank Bldg., Charleston, W. Va., for the petitioner. Rodney G. Haworth, for the respondent.

FORRESTER

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FORRESTER, Judge: Respondent has determined the following deficiencies as to petitioner's income tax:

Taxable year ended June 30, 1960$ 4,832.94
Taxable year ended June 30, 1961$28,123.06
Taxable year ended June 30, 1962$43,623.84
Taxable year ended June 30, 1963$21,991.98

The parties have reached agreements regarding all adjustments determined save one, so that the sole issue remaining for our decision is whether annual payments made by petitioner to Josephine Cash of $5,200 and related taxes thereon of $208 annually are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses of petitioner for its fiscal*81 years ending June 30, 1961, 1962, and 1963. The deficiency determined for petitioner's fiscal year ended June 30, 1960, is now entirely dependent upon our holding as to the sole remaining issue in petitioner's fiscal 1963.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and they are so found. Petitioner was incorporated on June 9, 1956, under the laws of West Virginia. Its income tax returns for its fiscal years in issue were filed with the district director of internal revenue, Parkersburg, West Virginia, and its principal office was located in Charleston, West Virginia, at the time the petition herein was filed.

At the time of its incorporation petitioner's stock was issued as follows:

ShareholdersShares
R. E. Cash20
V. N. Green20
M. M. Lilly, Jr16
D. S. Long16
J. M. Slack, Jr16
J. W. Green, Jr4
H. F. Johnson4
W. G. Clendenin 4
Total100
1101

Petitioner had been formed to, and from the time of its incorporation through the years in issue did, engage in the highway construction business. Its 100 shares of stock had been issued for $100 per share. Shortly after its formation petitioner commenced borrowing various sums of money from the*82 Kanawha Banking and Trust Company (hereinafter called bank) for use as working capital.

The highway construction business is highly hazardous, consequently as a condition to making these loans, bank required that petitioner's notes be personally endorsed by petitioner's principal stockholders and during 1956 and until the unexpected death of R. E. Cash (hereinafter sometimes called Cash) on June 7, 1957, bank required such endorsements by R.E. Cash, V.N. Green, M.M. Lilly, Jr., D.S. Long, and J.M. Slack, Jr.

R.E. Cash died still owning his 20 shares of petitioner's stock. Josephine Cash (hereinafter referred to as Josephine), his widow, was his sole heir and acquired these shares as a part of his entire net estate.

I. Noyes Smith was president and chief executive officer of bank when R.E. Cash died and throughout the years in issue. He had known Cash and had conducted business for bank with him since about 1927 and knew that at the time of his death Cash was a man of substantial net worth. He also knew that Josephine was beneficiary of his entire net estate and that she was maintaining good cash balances in bank.

When Cash died petitioner had been in business for only one year. *83 Cash was an endorser (together with Green, Lilly, Jr., Long and Slack, Jr., petitioner's other principal shareholders) of petitioner's note for $50,000 to bank and bank insisted that petitioner either furnish collateral or an acceptable substitute endorser to replace the security which had been afforded by the endorsement of R. E. Cash.

In November 1957 bank agreed with petitioner that the endorsement of Josephine Cash was so acceptable to bank and at that time the outstanding loan was reduced to $35,000 and the note was endorsed by Josephine, Green, Lilly, Jr., Long and Slack, Jr.

The record is silent as to petitioner's net worth in November 1957 but it shows that on October 1, 1957, its net worth was about $25,000 and that on June 30, 1958, its net worth was $35,917.21.

Josephine continued to endorse renewals of the above $35,000 note until March 31, 1961, at which time bank advised her that it had decided to accept renewals of said note without her endorsement and she has not been required to endorse any of petitioner's paper since that time.

On May 23, 1958, Josephine sold to petitioner the 20 shares of petitioner's stock which she had acquired from her late husband's estate*84 for $100 per share (total $2,000). The petitioner's net worth at May 23 is not shown of record but as noted above it was $35,917.21 or $359.17 per share on June 30, 1958.

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

Related

Monroe Sand & Gravel Co. v. Commissioner
36 B.T.A. 747 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1968 T.C. Memo. 225, 27 T.C.M. 1100, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-asphalt-paving-co-v-commissioner-tax-1968.