Ellis, Holyoke & Co. v. Commissioner

1970 T.C. Memo. 10, 29 T.C.M. 18, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 347
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1970
DocketDocket Nos. 2979-67 - 2982-67, 201-68.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1970 T.C. Memo. 10 (Ellis, Holyoke & Co. 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.

Bluebook
Ellis, Holyoke & Co. v. Commissioner, 1970 T.C. Memo. 10, 29 T.C.M. 18, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 347 (tax 1970).

Opinion

Ellis, Holyoke & Company, et al. 1 v. Commissioner.
Ellis, Holyoke & Co. v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 2979-67 - 2982-67, 201-68.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1970-10; 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 347; 29 T.C.M. (CCH) 18; T.C.M. (RIA) 70010;
January 15, 1970, Filed

*347 [Capital gain v. ordinary income: Capital asset defined: Compensation v. gain from capital asset: Identification of securities.] The individual petitioners, in a joing venture with Thomas R. Pansing, president of Nebraska National, purchased an option to buy 783,600 shares of Nebraska National stock to sell for a profit. Pansing negotiated an agreement with Bankers Life to sell to that company at cost sufficient shares of Nebraska National stock to control it. Pansing effected purchases of shares and options which were handled through the brokerage facilities of the corporate petitioner, owned by the individual petitioners. No commission or fee was charged. Bankers Life received 1,100,000 of 2,000,000 authorized shares of Nebraska National stock. Pansing retained 150,000 shares or options. The corporate petitioner retained 50,000 shares in its investment account. 19 The individual petitioners retained 50,000 options which they exercised. Later the petitioners sold their shares to Bankers Life for gains. Respondent contends such gains represented compensation to the corporate petitioner for services.

Held: (1) The gains from sales of Nebraska National stock by the petitioners*348 were capital gains.

(2) The gains from sales by the individual petitioners were not income to the corporate petitioner nor dividends to its stockholders.

John W. Stewart, 1410 Sharp Bldg., 212 S. 13th St., Lincoln, Nebr., and Philip G. Johnson for the petitioners. Ronald M. Frykberg, for the respondent.

BRUCE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

BRUCE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax in these consolidated cases as follows:

Docket No.YearDeficiency
Ellis, Holyoke & Company2979-67F/Y8/31/61$34,313.17
Ellis, Holyoke & Company201-68F/Y8/31/6441,831.07
Mary L. Chapin2980-6719634,234.68
J. Huntington Ellis and Madge M. Ellis2981-67196122,784.37
George W. Holyoke and Dorothy W. Holyoke2982-6719612,284.38
19632,026.15

*349 The issues for decision are (1) whether the gains from sales of stock of Nebraska National Life Insurance Company by the corporate petitioner and its stockholders are taxable as capital gains or as ordinary income, and (2) whether gains from sales by the stockholders are taxable to the corporation as income and to the stockholders as dividends.

Mary L. Chapin concedes adjustments relating to educational expenses in Docket No. 2980-67. The Holyokes concede a computation error for 1961 in Docket No. 2982-67.

Findings of Fact

The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached to the stipulation are incorporated by this reference.

The petitioners filed Federal income tax returns for the taxable years involved with the district director of internal revenue at Omaha, Nebraska.

The individual petitioners were residents of Lincoln, Nebraska, at the time they filed their petitions with this Court.

The principal place of business of the corporate petitioner has always been in Lincoln, Nebraska.

James Huntington Ellis, herein referred to as Ellis, and his wife Madge M. Ellis, filed their joint return for the calendar year 1961 on the cash basis of accounting. Ellis sometimes appears*350 herein as James H. Ellis or as J. Huntington Ellis.

George W. Holyoke, herein referred to as Holyoke, and his wife, Dorothy W. Holyoke, filed joint returns for the calendar years 1961 and 1963 on the cash basis of accounting.

Mary L. Chapin, herein referred to as Chapin, filed her return for the calendar year 1963 on the cash basis of accounting.

Ellis, Holyoke & Company, herein sometimes referred to as the corporate petitioner or the company, is a corporation incorporated in 1940 under the laws of Nebraska. It kept its books and filed its returns upon an accrual method of accounting and for fiscal years ended August 31. It filed corporation income tax returns for the fiscal years ended in 1960 to 1964, inclusive.

The stockholders of Ellis, Holyoke & Company were Ellis, owning 61 percent, Holyoke, owning 25 percent, and Chapin, owning 14 percent of its shares. The officers were Ellis, president, Holyoke, vice-president, and Chapin, secretary-treasurer. These individuals comprised the board of directors and are sometimes referred to herein as the individual petitioners.

The corporate petitioner has been engaged in business as an investment brokerage company. It has bought*351

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

Related

United States v. Isham
84 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court, 1873)
Hort v. Commissioner
313 U.S. 28 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner
350 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Commissioner v. LoBue
351 U.S. 243 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Transport, Inc.
364 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1960)
United States v. Midland-Ross Corp.
381 U.S. 54 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Granite Trust Company v. United States
238 F.2d 670 (First Circuit, 1956)
Koppers Co. v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 152 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Husted v. Commissioner
47 T.C. 664 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)
Nielsen v. United States
333 F.2d 615 (Sixth Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1970 T.C. Memo. 10, 29 T.C.M. 18, 1970 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-holyoke-co-v-commissioner-tax-1970.