First National Bank in Dallas v. United States

470 F.2d 531, 200 Ct. Cl. 265, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 12, 1972
DocketNo. 346-69
StatusPublished

This text of 470 F.2d 531 (First National Bank in Dallas 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
First National Bank in Dallas v. United States, 470 F.2d 531, 200 Ct. Cl. 265, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172 (cc 1972).

Opinion

Per Curiam

: This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Mastín G. White with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Buie 134(h). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on November 2,1971. Exceptions were filed by plaintiff to the commissioner’s opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law, defendant took no exceptions thereto and the case has been submitted to the court on the briefs of the parties and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the trial commissioner’s opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiff is entitled to recover to the extent indicated in the commissioner’s opinion, together with interest thereon as provided by law, and judgment is entered for plaintiff accordingly with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Bule 131 (c).

OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

White, Commissioner:

The plaintiff sues in this case for a refund of the additional interest equalization tax (and interest thereon) which the Sun Investment Company (“Sim”) paid for the final quarter of 1965 pursuant to a tax deficiency that was assessed against Sun by the Internal Bevenue Service.

[268]*268The defendant concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, although not to the full extent sought by the plaintiff.

The present suit arose out of a transaction that occurred on December 29,1965, between Sun and L. J. Hooker Investment Corporation, Ltd. (“Hooker”). At the time, Sun was a Delaware corporation that maintained its principal office in Dallas, Texas, and Hooker was a New South Wales, Australia, corporation that maintained its principal office in Sydney, Australia. Hooker was engaged (through many subsidiaries) in real estate development and operation, and also in large-scale farming that involved about 10,000 square miles of land.

On December 29, 1965, Hooker obtained $4,002,242.50 in cash from Sun, and Hooker furnished to Sun — either directly or through Sun’s nominee, Murchison Brothers — 21 promissory notes with a stated interest rate of 6y2 percent each and a total face amount of $4,002,242.50.

Ten of the Hooker promissory notes were issued as Series A notes in the face amount of $350,000 each, or an aggregate of $3,500,000, and 10 were issued as Series B notes in the face amount of $50,000 each, or an aggregate of $500,000. These 20 promissory notes, having a total face amount of $4,000,000, were due at serial maturities during the period from September 1967 through June 1977, although the entire principal of any of the 20 notes could be prepaid by Hooker at any time upon the payment of a premium.

As security for the 10 Series A promissory notes, having a total face amount of $3,500,000, Hooker issued 10 debenture stock certificates, which constituted a pledge of the stock of companies controlled by Hooker and provided additional protection for the holder of the Series A notes upon default. The Series B notes were unsecured.

In addition to the 10 Series A notes and the 10 Series B notes previously mentioned, Hooker also issued to Sun (through Sun’s nominee, Murchison Brothers) an instrument which was in the form of a promissory note for 1,000 Australian pounds (or $2,242.50 in United States money), bearing stated interest at the rate of 6y2 percent and repay[269]*269able in 11 years. This instrument, in a provision that is very significant from the standpoint of the present litigation, granted to the holder an option to purchase, “by Way of redemption of this Note” and at any time during the 11-year term of the note, 2,000,000 shares of Hooker ordinary stock units at a price of 5 shillings (or $0.560625 in United States money) per share. Thus, the total purchase price for the 2,000,000 shares would be 500,000 pounds, or $1,121,250. However, the holder of the note could either exercise the option wholly, utilizing the entire face amount of the note as a payment of 1,000 pounds (or $2,242.50) on the total purchase price of 500,000 pounds (or $1,121,250) for the stock, or could exercise the option partially for not less than 1,000 stock units (or multiples thereof) and the note would be reduced proportionately. In the event of an exercise of the option, the balance of the purchase price for the stock, over and above the portion paid for through the use of the note for this purpose, was to be paid within 1 month after the issuance of the stock.

The option which Sun acquired in the transaction previously mentioned was never exercised by Sun, either wholly or partially.

In its interest equalization tax return for the last quarter of 1965, Sun reported its acquisition of the 21 Hooker promissory notes at their face amounts, aggregating $4,002,-242.50, and as debt obligations. Sun paid a total interest equalization tax of $197,786.13 on the acquisition of the 21 notes.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, imposes the interest equalization tax “on each acquisition by a United States person * * * of stock of a foreign issuer, or of 'a debt obligation of a foreign obligor * * *” (26 U.S.C. § 4911(a)). The tax on the acquisition of a debt obligation (which is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 4920(a) (1) as meaning “any indebtedness * * *”) is based upon the actual value of such obligation and a rate which varies in relation to the period of time remaining to maturity (26 U.S.C. § 4911 (b) (1) (B)). In the present case, the rates used by Sun in computing the amount of the tax on the acquisition of the 21 promissory notes as [270]*270debt obligations ranged from a low of 1.5 percent to a high of 8.3 percent.

Upon auditing 'Sun’s account, the Internal Bevenue Service determined a tax deficiency in the amount of $29,174 against Sun, on the ground that Sun, in addition to paying the interest equalization tax on the 21 Hooker promissory notes as debt obligations, should also have paid the interest equalization tax on the stock option, which was valued by the Internal Bevenue Service at $290,000 for such purpose. In this connection, the interest equalization tax on the acquisition of stock issued by a foreign corporation is imposed at the flat rate of 15 percent on the actual value of the stock (26 U.S.C. § 4911 (b) (1) (A)); and the term “stock” is defined as including, inter alia, “any * * * option or similar right to acquire, any stock * * *” (26 U.S.C. § 4920(a) (2) (E)). Sun paid the tax deficiency of $29,174, plus interest in the amount of $2,609.27, on August 7,1967, thus providing the basis for the present suit for a refund.

Sun was liquidated on September 15,1967. This action for a refund was instituted, and is being maintained, by the First National Bank in Dallas as the trustee of the Sun liquidating trust.

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

Related

§ 4920
26 U.S.C. § 4920(a)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
470 F.2d 531, 200 Ct. Cl. 265, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1972 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-in-dallas-v-united-states-cc-1972.