Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kensico Cemetery

96 F.2d 594, 21 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 143, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1938
Docket201
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 96 F.2d 594 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kensico Cemetery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kensico Cemetery, 96 F.2d 594, 21 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 143, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528 (2d Cir. 1938).

Opinion

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The question presented by this petition is whether the respondent, a New York membership corporation, was exempt from income tax during the period from 1926 through 1932 by reason of section 231(5) of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 39, 26 U.S.C.A. § 103(5) and note, and section 103(5) of the Revenue Acts of 1928 and 1932, 45 Stat. 791, 812, 47 Stat. 169, 193, 26 U.S.C.A. § 103(5) and note. In identical language, these acts exempt “cemetery companies owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of their members or which are not operated for profit; and any corporation chartered solely for burial pur-. poses as a cemetery corporation and not permitted by its charter to engage in any *595 business not necessarily incident to that purpose, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.”

Land was acquired by respondent for burial grounds pursuant to the New York Statute, Laws of 1853, c. 122, § 1, which permits a cemetery to purchase land for burial purposes under an agreement to pay as the purchase price instead of a fixed sum "any specified share or portion not exceeding one-half the proceeds of all sales of lots or plots made from such lands.”

In 1889 respondent was organized as á rural cemetery association under chapter 133 of the Laws of 1847 as amended. It had no paid in capital and issued no certificates except those referred to herein. Since its organization and during the taxable years here in question, its business has consisted exclusively of the sale of lots for burial purposes or other activities normally incident thereto. After incorporation, respondent purchased 250 acres of land for cemetery purposes and agreed to pay as the purchase price thereof one-half of the proceeds of all sales of lots made from this land. The interest of the vendors was divided into 12,500 shares and land share certificates were issued by the respondent in payment therefor. It was provided that the certificates should be transferable on the books of the association in like manner as shares of stock.

Under this agreement, the land shareholders received $375,000 up to December 31, 1905, as their share of the proceeds from the sale of lots and plots. During this period, respondent paid out $926,000 for improvements of the cemetery; of this sum $353,000 represented borrowed money and a part of this was covered by certificates of indebtedness issued under the authority of section 97, chapter 74 of the Cemetery Act.

In 1906 respondent purchased an additional 333 acres from another vendor. Part of this new land was held .by the Kensington Cemetery,'of which the vendor held 90 per cent, of the outstanding land share certificates. As part of the plan, all of the outstanding land share certificates of the Kensington and Kensico Cemeteries were to be exchanged for a new series of land share certificates. This plan provided that the rights of one-half of the lot sales should be divided into 30,000 land shares and that the certificates for such shares were to be applied in the first instance so that the prior rights of the existing certificate holders of Kensico and Kensington Cemeteries should be recognized. In doing this, 12,500 new shares were reserved for Kensico’s outstanding certificates; 5,000 land shares were allotted to the vendor of the second parcel but out of these, reservations were made for any land shares of Kensington which Were not turned in. The remaining 12,500 land shares were to be offered for sale by respondent. However, the proceeds from the sale were to be used to retire certain mortgages which respondent had assumed as part of the transfer and to retire certain certificates of indebtedness held by the vendor of the second parcel and others; the remaining money, if any, was to be used for specified improvements in the cemetery.

From 1889 to 1925 respondent received for the sale of lots and plots the sum of $3,542,047.13, of which $1,179,239.15 was paid to land share holders. There was a surplus shown made up of its share of the sale of lots and revenues from its incidental cemetery operations.

The petitioner contends that the association was organized as a business enterprise conducted with a view of making profits and that the revendes were being used in part toward maintaining a business organization to promote the sale of lots; that large sums of money were used to embellish the cemetery, causing lot prices to go up and thus to create more profit to the land share holders and that consequently the operation of the association has been as much for the benefit of the land share holders as for the members and it is not exempt under the statute from payment of income tax.

Agreements for the purchase of land as here disclosed were expressly authorized by the Legislature of New York. This originated not in any plan for private enrichment, but in a public movement which was common to Great Britain and the United States in the early nineteenth century to correct unhealthful practices of sepulchers in crowded cities. 1

As early as 1847, the New York Rural Cemetery Act authorized the acquisition of burial grounds under agreement to apply a fixed proportion of the proceeds of *596 the sale of lots made from such lands as payment of a definite purchase price. Laws of 1847, c. 133, § 7. The Legislature in 1853 extended section 7 and' authorized an alternative method of acquiring burial lands by payment not to exceed one-half of the proceeds of the sale of lots, without limit, as the purchase price. Laws of 1853, c. 122, § 1. This provision has remained substantially unchanged in the successive revisions of cemetery statutes. N.Y.Membership Corporations Law of 1895, Laws 1895, c. 559, § 50; Consol.Laws of 1909, c. 35, Laws 1909, c. 40, § 70; Laws of 1926, c. 722, § 87. Moreover, section 2 of the Membership ’ Corporations Law of New York provides that a corporation existing under such law must be one not organized for pecuniary profit.

The land purchase agreements involved herein do not contain any evidence of an interest in the net earnings of the cemetery but of an indebtedness altogether in-' dependent of the question of “net earnings.” By these agreements, the land share holders have no direct interest in the business. The certificates can “only be regarded as certificates of indebtedness, entitled to the application, at periodic intervals, of one-half of the proceeds of future sales of lots” and they are “promises to pay money, differing essentially from certificates of stock which a stock corporation issues.” American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Woodlawn Cemetery, 194 N.Y. 116, 87 N.E. 107, 110; Gregory v. Chapman, 119 Md. 495, 87 A. 523.

The respondent is a membership corporation, that is to say, not a stock corporation nor one organized for pecuniary profit. It exists in accordance with legislation designed to meet a public purpose. Its revenues, derived from the sale of burial plots and incidental services, are directed in their entirety to the payment of debts incurred in the acquisition of burial grounds and in the maintenance and improvement of the cemetery for the public end for which the corporation was organized.

There are three statutory requisites for exemption and these are mutually independent. The presence of any of them creates an exemption.

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

Related

Estate of Tanenblatt v. Comm'r
2013 T.C. Memo. 263 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Laurel Hill Cemetery Ass'n v. United States
427 F. Supp. 679 (E.D. Missouri, 1977)
Du Pont De Nemours Cemetery Co. v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 314 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Restland Memorial Park of Dallas v. United States
371 F. Supp. 164 (N.D. Texas, 1974)
Rose Hills Memorial Park Ass'n v. United States
463 F.2d 425 (Court of Claims, 1972)
Washington Trust Bank v. United States
301 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Washington, 1969)
Knollwood Memorial Gardens v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 764 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Rose Hill Memorial Park, Inc. v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 240 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Gardens of Faith, Inc. v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 178 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Sherwood Memorial Gardens, Inc. v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 211 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Washington Park Cemetery Asso. v. Commissioner
1963 T.C. Memo. 268 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Diamant v. Mount Pleasant Westchester Cemetery Corp.
10 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
West Laurel Hill Cemetery Co. v. Rothensies
139 F.2d 50 (Third Circuit, 1943)
West Laurel Hill Cemetery Co. v. McLaughlin
44 F. Supp. 63 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F.2d 594, 21 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 143, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-kensico-cemetery-ca2-1938.