Estate of Frisch v. Commissioner

1959 T.C. Memo. 74, 18 T.C.M. 358, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 173
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 20, 1959
DocketDocket No. 59410.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1959 T.C. Memo. 74 (Estate of Frisch 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
Estate of Frisch v. Commissioner, 1959 T.C. Memo. 74, 18 T.C.M. 358, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 173 (tax 1959).

Opinion

Estate of Abraham Frisch, Deceased, Robert Garlock, Executor v. Commissioner.
Estate of Frisch v. Commissioner
Docket No. 59410.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1959-74; 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 173; 18 T.C.M. (CCH) 358; T.C.M. (RIA) 59074;
April 20, 1959
George B. Lourie, Esq., 161 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass., and Arnold R. Cutler, Esq., for the petitioner. Manning K. Leiter, Esq., for the respondent.

KERN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

In this case the respondent determined a deficiency in the income tax of decedent's estate for the period March 24 to December 31, 1946, in the sum of $19,077.41, with the following explanation:

"Your taxable income for the year 1946 has been increased by $40,944.90 which amount was received by you in the redemption of preferred stock of A. Frisch and Company, Inc., which has been determined to be a corporate distribution taxable as an ordinary dividend under the provisions of Section 115(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939."

By his*174 answer filed herein on October 25, 1955, respondent claims that there should be an addition to the tax under section 291(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 in the amount of $4,769.35 because no fiduciary income tax return was filed on behalf of decedent's estate for the period here involved.

Findings of Fact

A stipulation of facts was filed by the parties hereto. We find the facts to be as stipulated and incorporate herein by this reference the stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto.

Abraham Frisch, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the decedent, died on March 24, 1946. Robert Garlock, a member of the bar of New York, was executor of his estate during the period of time pertinent to this case. The executor filed a Federal income tax return (Form 1040) on behalf of the decedent, in which was reported the income of decedent for that part of 1946 prior to the date of his death. No Federal income tax return prepared on Form 1041 was filed by the executor which reported any income of the estate for that part of 1946 subsequent to decedent's death.

From 1922 to 1931 the decedent and Ralph Cohen engaged in the jewelry business as a partnership. In the latter year the*175 partnership was terminated and a corporation, A. Frisch & Company, Inc., was formed with an authorized capital of 1,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $100 per share. Of this stock 883 shares were issued to decedent and 117 shares were issued to Cohen. The amount of stock issued to each represented "the extent of the capital [of each] shown on the books * * *."

During the existence of the partnership decedent was entitled to 80 per cent of the profits and Cohen to 20 per cent. In 1942 it was agreed between decedent and Cohen that the profits of the corporation would be divided on the basis of two-thirds to decedent and one-third to Cohen, but at that time no change was made with regard to the corporation's stock. In 1945 Cohen became alarmed about decedent's health and insisted that the capitalization of the corporation should be changed to reflect the previous informal agreement with regard to distribution of the corporation's profits.

Accordingly, on October 3, 1945, a recapitalization of the corporation was effected by the issuance of a new issue of 300 shares of common stock (with an allocation of $300 from the surplus to the capital account), which was to be*176 distributed on a basis of 200 shares to decedent and 100 shares to Cohen, and by retiring the prior 1,000 shares of common stock and issuing in lieu thereof 5 per cent preferred stock in the amount of $100,000 at $100 par on a share-for-share basis, with decedent receiving 883 shares of the preferred stock and Cohen receiving 117 shares.

On January 16, 1946, a dividend of $20 per share was declared and paid on the common stock, the decedent receiving $4,000 and Cohen receiving $2,000. This was the only dividend declared on the corporation's common stock between 1931 and 1946.

For many years prior to the second World War the corporation and its predecessor partnership had sold watches manufactured by the Waltham Watch Company and Elgin National Watch Company which followed the merchandising policy of selling their products to wholesalers throughout the United States with the wholesalers selling directly to the retail jewelers. The corporation was one of five wholesale distributors of these watch companies for the New England area. Approximately 80 per cent of its business consisted of the sale of watches manufactured by these companies. On occasions throughout these years the corporation*177 had inventories of these watches amounting to approximately $60,000.

In 1942 the watch manufacturing companies, because of their participation in the war effort, ceased the production of watches for normal civilian use and thereafter the corporation "[except] for a small trickle of watches, * * * did not distribute Elgin and Waltham watches in substantial quantities * * *." However, during the war years, the corporation anticipated that when the war was over it would resume the business of acting as wholesale distributor of Elgin and Waltham watches and with this in mind it purchased United States Treasury Bonds amounting, as of January 31, 1945, to $50,000 which it intended to use in financing the purchase of such watches when and if they were again available for the wholesale trade.

In January 1946 the two watch manufacturing companies, in the course of converting to peacetime production, decided to change their merchandising and distribution policy and to sell directly to retail jewelers and not through wholesale distributors. Accordingly, in the early part of 1946 the corporation was informed by the two watch companies that it would be impossible for it to resume its business*178 of acting as wholesale distributor of the watches manufactured by these companies.

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

Related

Marie W. F. Nugent-Head Trust v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 817 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1959 T.C. Memo. 74, 18 T.C.M. 358, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-frisch-v-commissioner-tax-1959.