Colorado Life Co. v. Commissioner

29 B.T.A. 950, 1934 BTA LEXIS 1455
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedJanuary 30, 1934
DocketDocket No. 68355.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 B.T.A. 950 (Colorado Life Co. 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.

Bluebook
Colorado Life Co. v. Commissioner, 29 B.T.A. 950, 1934 BTA LEXIS 1455 (bta 1934).

Opinion

OPINION.

Lansdon:

The respondent has determined a deficiency in income tax for the year 1930 in the amount of $1,439.76. The only issue is whether a certain payment made by the petitioner in the taxable year was interest and therefore deductible from income in such year in conformity with section 203 (a) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1928.1

[951]*951The petitioner is an insurance company, with its principal office at Denver, Colorado. It was organized in 1919 with authorized capital of $200,000, of which $100,000 was paid in and the balance subscribed for. In 1921 it reinsured its business, distributed its assets to its stockholders and retired all its capital stock except two shares. In 1927 it was relicensed to do business in the State of Colorado, the laws of which provide that no insurance company shall operate therein unless it is possessed of an actual paid-up cash capital of not less than $100,000 and that whenever such minimum amount has been fully paid in and deposited with the commissioner of insurance, license to do business may be issued.

When it was decided to revive the petitioner in 1921, an agreement was entered into between it and a so-called “ Director’s Pool ”, which provides as follows:

(Par. 2) WHEREAS, the Company desires to obtain sufficient funds at this time- to obtain from the Insurance Department of the State of Colorado authority to begin the writing of Life Insurance for the reason, among other reasons, that assurances have heretofore been given, to the purchasers of Endowment Bonds issued by the Company that on or about this time such authority would be obtained; and
■(Par. 3) Whereas, the Pool is willing to advance to the Colorado Life Company, in one or several payments, a sum not exceeding One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) as the Pool may determine, on condition that the Company make a satisfactory contract with the Pool by which the total of all payments made by the Pool to the Company shall be repaid to the Pool out of the surplus of the Company in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as hereinafter provided, and upon the further condition that the Company shall pay the Pool one per cent (1%) of the Premium Income of the Company for twenty-five years, as hereinafter provided; and

Paragraph 3 was subsequently modified to provide that the surplus out of which petitioner was to redeem the shares of stock issued to the pool should be $60,000 instead of $50,000.

The agreement further provided as follows:

(Par. 10) Whenever, if ever, the Company shall have made purchases from the Pool aggregating the total value of all payments made by the Pool to the Company with interest as aforesaid, then and thereupon the Pool shall immediately assign and deliver to the Company all of said Par Value shares and Full Participating shares which shall not have theretofore been assigned and delivered to the Company.

Pursuant to the foregoing provision of the agreement the “ Director’s Pool ” paid the petitioner $100,000 in November 1921, made additional payments prior to the taxable year of $26,500, and at the date of the first payment received 2,000 par value and 8,000 full participating shares - of stock. Shortly thereafter it delivered back to the petitioner one fourth of each class of stock so received and the petitioner issued to it 2,500 limited participating shares. The payment of $100,000 to the petitioner in November 1927 enabled the [952]*952petitioner to secure a license to transact business as an insurance company in the State of Colorado under sections 25 and 312 of the insurance law of that state.

In November 1930, pursuant to the agreement, petitioner reacquired all its stock theretofore issued to the “ Director’s Pool ” by the payment thereto of $126,500, plus $17,'705.76 representing 8 percent per annum provided for in such agreement.

The petitioner contends that the payment of the aforesaid $17,705.76 in the taxable year was in discharge of interest then due on its indebtedness and, therefore, deductible from its income in that year as provided in section 203 (a) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1928. The respondent has determined that the amount in controversy was paid in connection with the redemption of the petitioner’s stock and must be regarded as a dividend under the provisions of section 115 (a) and (g) of the Revenue Act of 1928.3

If the amount paid by the Director’s Pool ” to the petitioner in 1927 was a loan secured by pledge of stock, it is clear that petitioner had no paid-in capital at that time and that its license to transact an insurance business was wrongfully obtained. We must presume that the commissioner of insurance required proof of compliance with all the pertinent provisions of the insurance laws of the state before the issue of the license. Having represented that the money in hand at the date of application for a license was paid-in capital, we are of the opinion that petitioner should not now be heard in a plea that such money was borrowed and the amount thereof a debt. [953]*953Angelus Building & Investment Co., 20 B.T.A. 667; affd., 57 Fed. (2d) 130.

After careful consideration of all the facts herein and of the applicable statutory provisions of the State of Colorado and the Federal revenue acts, we conclude that the “ Director’s Pool ” bought the stock in question under an agreement to resell the same to the petitioner as and when surplus earnings might be available. In the transaction in the taxable year petitioner redeemed its stock, which had a basic value of $126,500. The Commissioner correctly determined that the amount paid to the “ Director’s Pool ” in excess of such basis should be treated as a dividend.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

Related

J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Commissioner
44 B.T.A. 798 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)
Colorado Life Co. v. Commissioner
29 B.T.A. 950 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 B.T.A. 950, 1934 BTA LEXIS 1455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colorado-life-co-v-commissioner-bta-1934.