Frankel & Smith Beauty Departments, Inc. v. Commissioner

Second Circuit

Frankel & Smith Beauty Departments, Inc. v. Commissioner

167 F.2d 94, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 907, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1948

DocketNo. 190, Docket 20794

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 F.2d 94 (Frankel & Smith Beauty Departments, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frankel & Smith Beauty Departments, Inc. v. Commissioner, 167 F.2d 94, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 907, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916 (2d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We have some doubt as to the correctness of taxpayer’s basic contention that, for purposes of § 719(a) (1), any unconditional written obligation, contained in a contract, to pay a sum certain is a “note”; but, as the Commissioner does not, at least in this case, take issue with that contention, we shall here accept it arguendo. Even so, we agree with the Tax Court that no “note” exists here.

In the first place, as of the date when the parties contracted, no one could tell, from the face of the contract or otherwise, the amount for which taxpayer was liable, since the undertaking, even assuming it was unconditional, was to pay a sum “not to exceed a total cost of $75,000.” Accordingly, we ’ do not have here a sum certain.

In the second place, the obligation, in several respects, was not unconditional. We need point to but one condition: Jordan-Marsh had the. right to terminate the agreement at will, on sixty days’ notice at any one of divers dates during the ten-year period of the lease; if it so acted, then, by the provisions of the contract, taxpayer was ■ not required to make any further payments and Jordan Marsh was required to pay taxpayer “for each month of the unexpired term a sum equal to 1/120 part of the $25,000 initially paid by the” taxpayer.

As we agree with the Tax Court, we do not consider whether its decision is within so much of the doctrine of Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239, 88 L.Ed. 248 as still remains intact.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We have some doubt as to the correctness of taxpayer’s basic contention that, for purposes of § 719(a) (1), any unconditional written obligation, contained in a contract, to pay a sum certain is a “note”; but, as the Commissioner does not, at least in this case, take issue with that contention, we shall here accept it arguendo. Even so, we agree with the Tax Court that no “note” exists here.

In the first place, as of the date when the parties contracted, no one could tell, from the face of the contract or otherwise, the amount for which taxpayer was liable, since the undertaking, even assuming it was unconditional, was to pay a sum “not to exceed a total cost of $75,000.” Accordingly, we ’ do not have here a sum certain.

In the second place, the obligation, in several respects, was not unconditional. We need point to but one condition: Jordan-Marsh had the. right to terminate the agreement at will, on sixty days’ notice at any one of divers dates during the ten-year period of the lease; if it so acted, then, by the provisions of the contract, taxpayer was ■ not required to make any further payments and Jordan Marsh was required to pay taxpayer “for each month of the unexpired term a sum equal to 1/120 part of the $25,000 initially paid by the” taxpayer.

As we agree with the Tax Court, we do not consider whether its decision is within so much of the doctrine of Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239, 88 L.Ed. 248 as still remains intact.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.2d 94, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 907, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-smith-beauty-departments-inc-v-commissioner-ca2-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack