Doty v. United States

207 F. Supp. 227, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5045, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4936
District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided June 6, 1962·No. Civ. A. No. 17781·Published

Opinion

THORNTON, District Judge.

The Court has before it cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the parties to an income tax refund case. The motion of plaintiffs was filed and heard prior to the filing of the motion by the Government. The Government’s motion was accompanied by the filing of a brief. We will consider both motions in this memorandum. Each party to the controversy takes the position that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that summary judgment should be entered in its favor.

For purposes of background data we should state that this case was placed on the suspended docket some time ago because of the pendency before the Court of Appeals for this Circuit of a case which the parties agreed was factually identical in all pertinent respects to this case — Drysdale v. Commissioner, 277 F. 2d 413 (6 Cir., 1960).

The decision in Drysdale was that there were no income tax deficiencies. After the decision was handed down the plaintiffs here moved for summary judgment in their favor. The Drysdale case differs from the instant case in two particulars — one important and the other unimportant. Unimportant is the fact that the case was initially tried in the Tax Court. 32 T.C. 378. Important is the different theory upon which the Government here contends that income tax deficiencies exist. The theory here advanced by the Government was not advanced in the Drysdale case at either Tax Court or Appeal Court level, nor is the opinion of the Court of Appeals authority for rejecting such theory, despite the fact that plaintiffs contend that certain language at the conclusion of the opinion implicitly discredits the theory here advanced by the Government. We state at the outset that we conceive the Drysdale case to be authority for the proposition that the position of the Government as taken by the Tax Court and upon which the Tax Court based its determination is [228] untenable. The reference which plaintiffs claim was made by the Court of Appeals to the new theory (as we shall call it) of the Government tends to support rather than to discredit the theory. We therefore proceed to a consideration of the new theory.

Since the facts in this case are identical in all pertinent respects to those in Drysdale, we set them forth here by quoting the statement of them as made by Judge Simons in Drysdale:

“The petitioners were cash basis taxpayers and filed joint income tax returns for the years in question. Drysdale, a practical engineer, had been in the employ of Briggs Manufacturing Company since 1926, in charge of production, and subsequently became a director and vice president. Though for a long time in the employ of Briggs, he, on October 1, 1952, for the first time, entered into a formal written employment contract with Briggs. Under it, Briggs was to pay him $1500.00 a month for ten years following termination of his full time activities, or upon reaching the age of sixty five (65). During that period Drys-dale obligated himself to serve Briggs in an advisory and consulting capacity and to refrain from accepting employment with, or acquiring an interest in, any activity which was inconsistent with or adverse to the activities of Briggs. Upon the breach of any condition, Drysdale was to forfeit all rights to further compensation under the contract. In the fall of 1953, Briggs negotiated a sale of its automotive and aircraft division to the Chrysler Corporation and a sale was consummated to be effective December 29, 1953. In this situation, Briggs desired to amend petitioner’s employment contract and on December 28, 1953 the original contract was amended. Pertinent clauses are printed in the margin. Under its terms, the Briggs’ liability was reduced from $180,000 over a ten year period to $90,000 over a five year period. Briggs was to make payment of $1500.00 a month to a trustee who would hold the money and pay Drys-dale $1500.00 a month upon his reaching age sixty five, or upon the termination of full time employment, or to his wife or estate, if he died before reaching sixty five. In addition, petitioner was permitted to work for Chrysler. Except for these amendments, the 1953 1 contract was to continue in full force and effect. Drysdale became a full time Chrysler employee immediately following the sale to Chrysler and retired in 1957. Briggs turned over to a trustee $16,500 in the tax year 1954 and $18,000 in the tax year of 1955. While Drysdale received nothing from the trustee in those years, the Commissioner contended, and the Tax Court agreed, that these amounts were income to Drysdale during the tax years under the doctrine of construction receipt.”

The decision in Drysdale turns on the grounds advanced there by the Government that the amounts paid in 1954 and in 1955 were constructively received by Drysdale, and alternatively on the economic benefit or cash equivalent theory. The Court of Appeals rejected both theories and reversed the Tax Court.

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

Doty v. United States, 207 F. Supp. 227, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5045, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4936 (E.D. Mich. 1962).

207 F. Supp. 227 (Doty v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drysdale v. Commissioner
32 T.C. 378 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)