Gilbert v. Commissioner

1956 T.C. Memo. 137, 15 T.C.M. 688, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 155
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 12, 1956
DocketDocket No. 49422.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1956 T.C. Memo. 137 (Gilbert 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
Gilbert v. Commissioner, 1956 T.C. Memo. 137, 15 T.C.M. 688, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 155 (tax 1956).

Opinion

Benjamin D. Gilbert and Madeline P. Gilbert v. Commissioner.
Gilbert v. Commissioner
Docket No. 49422.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1956-137; 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 155; 15 T.C.M. (CCH) 688; T.C.M. (RIA) 56137;
June 12, 1956
*155 Fred R. Tansill, Esq., and Francis H. Davies, Esq., for the petitioners. Nathan M. Silverstein, Esq., for the respondent.

KERN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined a deficiency in petitioners income tax for the calendar year 1948 in the amount of $48,518.65. The issues presented are (1) whether certain advances made by petitioners to a corporation and its subsidiaries in 1946, 1947 and 1948 were loans or capital contributions; (2) if the advances were loans when made, was the loss arising from the worthlessness of the debts in 1948 incurred in petitioners' trade or business; and (3) whether $4,000 advanced to a dissolved corporation on December 30, 1948, if not allowed as a business bad debt deduction, is deductible as a business expense.

Findings of Fact

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

The petitioners are husband and wife residing in Stamford, Connecticut. They were married in 1937. They filed their joint Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1948 with the collector*156 of internal revenue for the third district of New York.

Subsequent to graduation from college in 1930, the petitioner, Benjamin Gilbert, engaged in selling securities and acting as investment counsel with a firm owned by his father. At this time he also sold advertisements in programs issued in connection with amateur plays preformed by the Players Club of Utica, New York. In 1932 Benjamin left the investment business and went into retail merchandising in Utica, New York, with the Robert Fraser, Inc. department store, where he become assistant to the advertising manager prior to leaving in 1934. During this time he also marketed fruit cakes made by his mother. In 1934 Benjamin was employed by R. H. Macy & Company, a retail department store in New York City, where he was a section manager in various departments. After four or five months' employment with Macy's he resigned to accept employment with Montgomery Ward as a copy writer, but before he actually reported to Montgomery Ward, the job disappeared. He then became connected with an advertising agency in New York City for whom he wrote copy and was an account executive until December 31, 1937. During the period when Benjamin was*157 employed by the advertising agency, he and several other people unsuccessfully attempted to develop and perfect a cold cream.

On December 31, 1937, Benjamin went to work for International Industries at Ann Arbor, Michigan, a concern which manufactured the Argus Camera, Cadet Radio, and microfilm meters. Benjamin was first assigned to the microfilm department, and later was placed in charges of sales and market research on new items which the company might manufacture. Among the new items which Benjamin investigated on behalf of International Industries was a spirit duplicator, a form of ditto machine, that could make up to 400 copies of a piece of material. International Industries accepted the spirit duplicator on Benjamin's recommendation and placed him in charge of its manufacture. In mid-1939 the management of International Industries changed and Benjamin was fired. He then spent some time developing another type of duplicator which he patented and called a "Sprinter". To manufacture and market the "Sprinter" Benjamin organized a wholly-owned company, Sprinter, Inc., which was financed largely by his wife, the petitioner Madeline. Madeline is a wealthy woman, the niece of John*158 D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the beneficiary of a trust created by him and his sister, Madeline's mother. Shortages of the various materials used in the manufacture of the Sprinter, caused by the mobilization and rearmament programs, forced abandonment of the project at that time. In 1940 Benjamin developed and manufactured through Dash, Inc. 1 a smaller postcard size mimeograph duplicator which was not so dependent on critical materials. Benjamin organized a sole proprietorship bearing the name Gilbert Sales Company to market this item. However, Dash, Inc. also had to discontinue making the duplicator in 1940 due to shortages in materials.

In 1940 Benjamin formed with one Clarke a partnership which acted as a broker for wooden products which were supplanting plastics, steel and rubber during the war period. The Gilbert and Clarke partnership continued to operate during the war until it terminated in 1945 with the death of Clarke. In 1940 the petitioners also were interested in two other enterprises. Madeline invested money in the Adobe Brick*159 Company, and Benjamin became a consultant for that concern. Madeline and Benjamin became stockholders in a concern known as Bolinca, which was engaged in mining gold in South America, which project was ultimately suspended due to the inability to obtain Government permission to transport a dredge from this country to South America.

Benjamin was a partner in a partnership which developed a product known as "Kindle Light" consisting of wood or canvas impregnated with solid oil. One of these products, a small pocket stove for cooking without visible flame, was submitted to the Government for use in the armed forces; however, a competing model was accepted. This partnership also submitted a number of other samples to the Government of products utilizing solid oil such as flares and bombs.

Gilbert acquired a patent for the making of "flock glasses" in 1941. This was a method of spraying rayon, wool, or cotton waste on the outside of a tumbler, thereby giving it a thermal coat so that the glass will not sweat or become moist when filled with an iced beverage. The flocking with these materials was not successful since it washed off too easily, but an improved formula using a latex base*160 was developed which was satisfactory. However, at that time rubber latex could not be obtained in quantity and nothing more was done with the patent.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1956 T.C. Memo. 137, 15 T.C.M. 688, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-commissioner-tax-1956.