Diebold v. Commissioner
This text of 12 T.C.M. 167 (Diebold 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.
Opinion
*366 Held, adjusted basis of stock owned by taxpayer determined.
Supplemental Memorandum Opinion Sur Mandate
VAN FOSSAN, Judge: *367 In the original opinion in this proceeding, entered December 7, 1950, this Court determined that the petitioner's basis for computing the gain or loss on the disposition of 150 shares of capital stock in Diebold Investment Company was $54.59. The issue presented, upon submission of the proceeding under Rule 30, was whether a testamentary devise to the aforementioned corporation, of his residuary estate, including shares in this corporation, by F. X. Diebold, petitioner's brother, altered the petitioner's basis in this stock. This Court held that it did not. Subsequently appeals were prosecuted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That Court ordered and decided that the decision of this Court be vacated and remanded for redetermination of the taxpayer's deficiency in accordance with the opinion of that Court.
The decision of the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner's one-eighth interest in the family corporation was increased by the surrender and elimination of his brother's one-eighth interest as a stockholder, with the result that the petitioner then held a one-seventh interest in the corporation. The petitioner's proprietary interest was said to have*368 increased from 7/56 to 8/56. The Court said that the taxpayer's adjusted basis should have included the cost of the original 7/56 interest and the value of the additional 1/56 interest so acquired.
This Court granted a motion to reopen the record in order that the facts necessary for a decision, in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, might be presented. The parties have, by supplemental stipulation, agreed to the following:
"1. The value of the 12 shares of stock for Federal estate tax purposes in the Estate of F. X. Diebold, deceased, was $25,000.00, and the value of all other property of the decedent which was devised and bequeathed to the Diebold Investment Company was $307,245.95.
"2. In 1929 a distribution of $47,040.00 was made to all the stockholders of the Diebold Investment Company. From this distribution, petitioner received $6,720.00. At the time of the said distribution, the only source available to the corporation for distribution was the property which the corporation received from the Estate of F. X. Diebold, deceased, valued at $307,245.95.
"3. In 1937 a distribution of $1,000.00 was made to the stockholders of the Diebold Investment Company. *369 From this distribution, petitioner received $200.00. At the time of the said distribution, the only source available to the corporation for distribution was the property which the corporation received from the Estate of F. X. Diebold, deceased, valued at $307,245.95.
"4. In 1943 a distribution of $1,000.00 was made to the stockholders of the Diebold Investment Company. From this distribution, petitioner received $200.00. At the time of the said distribution, the only source available to the corporation for distribution was the property which the corporation received from the Estate of F. X. Diebold, deceased, valued at $307,245.95.
"5. Immediately prior to February 26, 1927, the date of death of F. X. Diebold, the petitioner owned 12 shares of stock of the Diebold Investment Company, which represented a one-eighth proprietary interest in the corporation, having a cost basis of $72.78.
"6. After the death of F. X. Diebold, and after giving equal effect to the bequest of 12 shares of Diebold Investment Company stock of the decedent to the corporation, the petitioner owned a one-seventh interest in the Diebold Investment Company.
"7. The Diebold Investment Company in 1929 and*370 1936 purchased 26 shares of its stock which were formerly held by E. M. Diebold and H. J. Diebold. The purchase and re-issue of said stock gave petitioner a one-fifth interest in the Diebold Investment Company after 1936.
"8. In 1930 petitioner received a stock dividend of two shares of Diebold Investment Company.
"9. In 1937 petitioner received a stock dividend of 186 shares of Diebold Investment Company stock, which increased his holding in the Diebold Investment Company stock to 200 shares.
"10. In 1942 petitioner made gifts of shares of stock of Diebold Investment Company totalling 50 shares to individual members of his family."
The parties have agreed by the above stipulation that the value of the stock of the petitioner's deceased brother was $25,000. By applying the rule enunciated by the Court of Appeals' opinion, the petitioner's basis is increased by one-seventh of the value of this stock, or $3,571.43. The Court of Appeals' opinion precluded an increase in the petitioner's basis because of the devise of the remainder of the residuary estate other than stock in the Diebold Investment Company. It stated:
"* * * This value is the worth of the stock as it passed from*371 the testator and does not include any part of the value of the property other than stock which he devised and bequeathed to the corporation.
* * *
"* * * The devise of miscellaneous property, unlike the surrender of Diebold stock, did not enlarge the taxpayer's proportional interest in the corporation. * * *"
It is stated in the supplemental stipulation that in 1929 the petitioner received $6,720 from the Diebold corporation at a time when the only source available to that corporation for this distribution was the property received from F. X. Diebold, deceased, valued at $307,245.95. This distribution, it is argued, was a distribution of capital reducing the petitioner's basis to zero.
The parties agree that, subsequent to the acquisition of the increased proportional interest in the corporation and prior to the disposition of this stock in the taxable year, the taxpayer received $6,720 from the corporation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 T.C.M. 167, 1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diebold-v-commissioner-tax-1953.