F. H. Peavey & Co. v. United States

55 F.2d 516, 73 Ct. Cl. 600, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1113, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 858, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 522
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 18, 1932
DocketJ-19
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 F.2d 516 (F. H. Peavey & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
F. H. Peavey & Co. v. United States, 55 F.2d 516, 73 Ct. Cl. 600, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1113, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 858, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 522 (cc 1932).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Judge.

The plaintiff, a Minnesota corporation, sues to recover the sum of $29,112.87, corporation income tax, alleged to have been erroneously collected from tbe plaintiff for tbe calendar year 1922, together with interest thereon.

During the year 1922 the plaintiff owned 51 per cent, of the outstanding capital stock of the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Dominion of Canada, which corporation in turn owned the entire 190 per cent, capital stock of the Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., also a Canadian corporation.

During the year 1922 the plaintiff received cash dividends from the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., $159,375 on June 15, 1922, and $212^500 on September 18, 1922. These dividends converted into American exchange amounted to $370,148.44. The dividends were paid out of undivided profits of the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., as follows:

For the fiscal year ended July 15, 1921, $673,844.42, of which sum $530,006 was received as dividends from the Port Arthur *521 Elevator Company, Ltd.; and for the year ended June 30, 1922, $608,147.67, of which amount $425,000 was received as a dividend from the Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd.

The dividends received by the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., from tho Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., were not subject to Canadian income tax to the British America Company. The American exchange value of the undivided profits of the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., from the Port Arthur Elevator Company, tiff, in 1922, was $1,276,038.82.

The British America Elevator Company, Ltd., paid income taxes to Canada for tho fiscal years ending July 15,1921, and July 15, 1922, respectively, the sums of $14,678.80 and $21,054.84, reduced when converted to American exchange to the sum of $35,567.47. The amount of income taxes paid to Canada by the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., on undivided profits from which dividends were paid plaintiff in the year 1922, was $10,317.41. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue credited the plaintiff with this amount on its 1922 taxes.

The plaintiff in this suit contends it is entitled to an additional credit of $29,112.87. It is urged: (1) That the plaintiff is entitled to credit as against its tax liability to the United States for the year 1922 for taxes paid to the Dominion of Canada by the Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., whose entire stock was owned by the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., and (2) that plaintiff is entitled to credit for taxes paid to Canada by th.e British America Elevator Company, Ltd., for its fiscal year July 1, 1922; to June 30, 1.922.

If it be bold the plaintiff is right as to its first contention, it is entitled to recover its entire elaim, $20,112.87. If it be held that plaintiff is right as to its second contention only, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $2,898.70. If it bo hold the plaintiff is not right as to either contention, it is not entitled to recover any sum.

Section 238 (a) of tho Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 258) provides that the tax of a domestic corporation shall ho credited with the amount of any income war profits, and excess profits taxes paid during the taxable year to any foreign country. Section 238 (e), provides: “For tho purposes of this section a domestic corporation which owns a majority of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends (not deductible under section 234) in any taxable year shall he deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war-profits, or excess-profits taxes paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country * * * , upon or with, respect to the accumulated profits of such foreign corporation from which such dividends were paid, which the amount of such dividends bears to the amount of such accumulated profits. '* * * The term 'accumulated profits’ when used in this subdivision in reference to a foreign corporation, means the amount of its gains, profits, or income in excess of the income, war-profits, and excess-profits taxes imposed upon or with respect to such profits or income; and the Commissioner y- * * shall have full power to determine from the accumulated profits of what year or years such dividends were paid; treating dividends paid in the first sixty days of any year as having been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or years (unless to his satisfaction shown otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as having been paid from the most recently accumulated gains, profits, or earnings. * * *»

Section 238 (a) of the 1921 aet gives a domestic corporation a right to a credit for the taxes paid by it to a foreign government. Section 238 (e), however, indulges the presumption that a domestic corporation has paid that proportion of tho taxes paid by a foreign corporation, in which it owns a majority of tho voting stock, to any foreign government, which the dividends received by the domestic corporation bear to the accumulated profits of tho foreign-corporation, and allows the domestic corporation a credit therefor. The credit'is entirely and directly dependent upon tho ownership of a majority of the stock of tho foreign corporation. Tho plaintiff owned no stock in tho Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., and received no dividends from that corporation. The British America Elevator Company, Ltd., and the Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., are separate and distinct corporations, each bearing its own individual tax liability to the Dominion of Canada. Taxes paid by the Port Artlmr Elevator Company to Canada cannot bo held to have been taxes paid by a foreign corporation in respect to which the plaintiff is entitled, under section 238 (e) of the 1921 Revenue Aet, to credit on its tax liability to the United States.

Plaintiff contends, however, that section 240 (d) of the 1921 aet (42 Stat. 2600, which provides "that in any case of two or more related trades or businesses (whether *522 unincorporated or incorporated and whether organized in the United States or not) owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Commissioner may consolidate the accounts of such related trades and businesses, in any proper case, for the purpose of making an accurate distribution or apportionment of gains, profits, income, deductions, or capital between or among such related trades or businesses,” is applicable to section 238' (e) and permits the consolidation of the accounts of the British America Elevator Company, Ltd., and the Port Arthur Elevator Company, Ltd., for the purpose of computing the amount of credit allowable to plaintiff.

Article 637 of Treasury Regulations 62, interpreting section 240 (d), provides: “This provision relates not to the payment of taxes, but to the determination of the true income of related trades or businesses, and thus indirectly to the amount of taxes which may be due under Title II and Title III of the statute.”

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, following this regulation, has uniformly held that section 240 (d) does not authorize the consolidation of the accounts of related trades or businesses for the purpose of computing the amount of credit- allowable under section 238 (e) for income tax paid to a foreign country.

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

Related

Steel Improv. & Forge Co. v. Commissioner
36 T.C. 265 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Terwilliger
135 F.2d 608 (Sixth Circuit, 1943)
International Milling Co. v. United States
27 F. Supp. 592 (Court of Claims, 1939)
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United States
91 F.2d 973 (Second Circuit, 1937)
United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. White
13 F. Supp. 97 (D. Massachusetts, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 F.2d 516, 73 Ct. Cl. 600, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1113, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 858, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-h-peavey-co-v-united-states-cc-1932.