Connor Lumber & Land Co. v. United States

82 F. Supp. 461, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1075, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DecidedJanuary 19, 1949
DocketNo. 1775
StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. Supp. 461 (Connor Lumber & Land Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Connor Lumber & Land Co. v. United States, 82 F. Supp. 461, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1075, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033 (W.D. Wis. 1949).

Opinion

STONE, District Judge.

In this action plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant, an alleged overpayment of a surtax in the sum of $23,311.59, with interest, on undistributed profits for the year 1937.

All facts have been stipulated and this Court adopts the stipulation as its findings of fact.

Plaintiff’s claim for refund was properly filed and officially disallowed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on April 9, 1946.

The material facts, as stipulated by the parties, are as follows: .

Plaintiff is now and was at all times mentioned in the complaint, a Wisconsin corporation with offices at Marshfield, Wisconsin, and engaged in logging operations upon timber lands owned by if and in the manufacture of lumber and lumber products at its sawmill located at Laona, Wisconsin.

In the year 1932 plaintiff, unable to pay its indebtedness, defaulted in the payment of interest on its outstanding mortgage indebtedness. Pursuant to the terms of the mortgage and trust deed securing that indebtedness, the trustee thereunder declared the entire amount of plaintiff’s outstanding bonds, amounting to the principal sum of $861,000, and accrued interest, to be immediately due and payable. Thereupon, the trustees under the trust deed threatened and assumed to take possession of all of the property and assets of plaintiff described in the trust deed as security for its bonded indebtedness. Thereafter, through negotiation with the creditors’ committee, representing the holders of the outstanding mortgage bonds, and all unsecured creditors of the company, creditors’ agreements were entered into in writing on September 2, 1932, under which agreements all control of the assets and management of plaintiff was surrendered by the stockholders to representatives of its secured and unsecured creditors.

[462]*462The agreement between plaintiff and its bondholders’ protective committee, among other things, provided in part:

(1) That on or before May 1, 1937, plaintiff was obligated to pay not less than $400,000 to the mortgage trustees on the principal of the bonds and one-half of the unpaid interest on the bonds for the period from November 1, 1931 to May 1, 1934. On or before May 1, 1938, plaintiff was to make payments to the mortgage trustees of the balance of the interest remaining unpaid for the-period prior to May 1, 1934, and an additional payment of not less than $75,000 on the principal of the bonds. Thereafter, plaintiff was to make principal payments to the mortgage trustees on the principal in the amount of not less than $75,000 each year commencing with the year ending May 1, 1939, and continuing until all the bonds' were paid in full. Except to the extent of the defaults provided to be remedied by the foregoing, plaintiff w-as required to comply with all of the other terms and conditions of the trust indenture of October 15, 1926.

(2) The directors of plaintiff were required to execute and deliver their resignations to the trustees named in the agreement immediately upon the appointment of the trustees, with authority in such trustees to deliver such resignations to plaintiff at any time as the trustees in their discretion should determine, such resignations to become effective immediately upon their delivery to plaintiff by the trustees.

(3) Plaintiff was required to enter into an agreement with its general creditors for an extension of time for payment of their claims. It was also required to enter into an agreement with R. Connor Company, another of its creditors, whereby plaintiff’s indebtedness to that company was subordinated to the mortgage bonds and certain other indebtedness.

(4) Within 10 days from the date of the agreement, the holders of not less than 79 per cent of plaintiff’s outstanding common stock were required to become parties to the agreement by endorsing their stock in blank and delivering it to the trustees named in the agreement, and the trustees were authorized to transfer the stock on the books of plaintiff to their joint names, as trustees.

(5) The protective committee agreed that it would refrain from making demand upon -the trustees for foreclosure of the trust indenture so long -as plaintiff, its officers, directors, and stockholders complied with the terms, provisions and conditions of the agreement.

(6) The trustees were the legal owners of record of plaintiff’s stock and, as such, were entitled to and could exercise any and all voting rights and such'other rights with respect thereto as were vested in them by the agreement, including all such control over the affairs, property, and management as could be exercised by stockholders of plaintiff, except the power to sell substantially all of plaintiff’s property before default by it.

(7) If at any time during the life of the agreement proceedings should be instituted for the appointment of a receiver for plaintiff or judgment should be entered against it or other legal action taken in respect to it, which in the opinion of the committee made it necessary or advisable for the committee to terminate the agreement, it was authorized to do so, and upon its termination plaintiff’s stock was to be transferred to it for the benefit of the deposited bonds.

(8) The agreement was to remain in effect until terminated by action of the committee as therein provided or until plaintiff had complied with the provisions of the agreement and had remedied all defaults upon the trust indenture securing the bonds. Upon termination of the agreement, plaintiff’s stock was to be returned to its stockholders.

Immediately after the execution of the agreement and in pursuance of the terms and requirements thereof, all of the stockholders of plaintiff assigned and transferred plaintiff’s outstanding stock, together with all voting rights thereon to the three named trustees selected by the creditors’ committee in pursuance of the provisions of the agreement. Thereafter, all assets and property of the company and [463]*463the conduct of its business were under the control of the trustees so selected and all voting rights were exercised by them until subsequent to the year 1937.

The undivided profit of plaintiff for the taxable year 1937, as shown by its books of account, was $56,488.27. During that year there was paid out of plaintiff’s net earnings and from amounts realized from the conversion of capital assets during 1937 indebtedness then due and payable and accrued prior to May 1, 1936, including interest, the aggregate sum of $253,474.25.

On or about March 15, 1938, plaintiff filed its corporation income and excess profits tax return for the calendar year 1937 with the Collector of Internal Revenue at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which return disclosed an undistributed profits surtax in the amount of $10,745.83, which surtax was paid in equal quarterly installments during the year 1938. No credit for contracts restricting dividend payments was claimed by plaintiff in its return filed for the calendar year 1937.

Thereafter, the Commissioner determined the adjusted net taxable income and the undistributed net income for the year 1937 to be $113,715.08, and determined the total surtax on undistributed profits for that year to be $23,311.59, or a deficiency surtax of $12,565.76, which deficiency was assessed against and thereafter paid by plaintiff, with accrued interest, on June 30, 1939.

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

Related

Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.
311 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Helvering v. Ohio Leather Co.
317 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Maloney Electric Co. v. Commissioner
42 B.T.A. 78 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)
Belle-Vue Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
43 B.T.A. 12 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 F. Supp. 461, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1075, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-lumber-land-co-v-united-states-wiwd-1949.