Cummins Diesel Sales of Oregon, Inc. v. United States of America, Robert H. Wills and Lillian Wills v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Cummins Diesel Sales of Oregon, Inc. v. United States of America, Robert H. Wills and Lillian Wills v. United States

321 F.2d 503, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 1963

Docket18438, 18439

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 321 F.2d 503 (Cummins Diesel Sales of Oregon, Inc. v. United States of America, Robert H. Wills and Lillian Wills v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cummins Diesel Sales of Oregon, Inc. v. United States of America, Robert H. Wills and Lillian Wills v. United States, 321 F.2d 503, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5296 (9th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

The District Court correctly stated and applied the pertinent legal principles in deciding these tax refund suits adversely to appellant taxpayers (207 F.Supp. 746 (D.Or.1962)). Indeed, appellants do not contend to the contrary.

However, appellants contend that the District Court erred in finding as matters of fact: (1) that earnings and profits of the corporate appellant were permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of its business in 1955 and 1956, and the corporate appellant was availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders in these years (see 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 532, 533); and (2) that amounts paid by the corporate appellant to an employee who performed nursing and other services for the individual appellant (the corporate appellant’s president and principal stockholder) were expenditures for the personal benefit of the individual appellant and constituted a constructive dividend to him (deductible by the individual appellant as personal medical expenses to the extent permitted by law), and were not ordinary and necessary business expenses of the corporate appellant. See 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) (1). We have examined the record and are satisfied that the findings are supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

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

BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

The District Court correctly stated and applied the pertinent legal principles in deciding these tax refund suits adversely to appellant taxpayers (207 F.Supp. 746 (D.Or.1962)). Indeed, appellants do not contend to the contrary.

However, appellants contend that the District Court erred in finding as matters of fact: (1) that earnings and profits of the corporate appellant were permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of its business in 1955 and 1956, and the corporate appellant was availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders in these years (see 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 532, 533); and (2) that amounts paid by the corporate appellant to an employee who performed nursing and other services for the individual appellant (the corporate appellant’s president and principal stockholder) were expenditures for the personal benefit of the individual appellant and constituted a constructive dividend to him (deductible by the individual appellant as personal medical expenses to the extent permitted by law), and were not ordinary and necessary business expenses of the corporate appellant. See 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) (1). We have examined the record and are satisfied that the findings are supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F.2d 503, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummins-diesel-sales-of-oregon-inc-v-united-states-of-america-robert-h-ca9-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack