Gilmore v. Commissioner

1974 T.C. Memo. 41, 33 T.C.M. 196, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 277
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 19, 1974
DocketDocket No. 6396-70.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1974 T.C. Memo. 41 (Gilmore 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
Gilmore v. Commissioner, 1974 T.C. Memo. 41, 33 T.C.M. 196, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 277 (tax 1974).

Opinion

JAMES and GERTRUDE GILMORE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Gilmore v. Commissioner
Docket No. 6396-70.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1974-41; 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 277; 33 T.C.M. (CCH) 196; T.C.M. (RIA) 74041;
February 19, 1974, Filed
James Gilmore, pro se.
James D. Thomas, for the respondent.

GOFFE

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

GOFFE, Judge: The respondent determined deficiencies in the Federal income taxes and addition to tax of petitioners as follows:

YearDeficiency in TaxAddition to Tax Sec. 6651(a)
1964$ 1,335.16$ 10.39
19651,231.91-0-
19661,199.14-0-

The following issues are presented for decision:

(1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to a deduction as a business loss or worthless debt for any of the taxable years 1964, 1965, and 1966, by reason of the assignment for the benefit of creditors in 1962 of all the assets of their wholly owned corporation;

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to deductions as interest in the taxable years 1965 and 1966 for finance charges on an automobile retail installment contract;

(3) Whether petitioners are entitled to a depreciation deduction in 1966*280 for two automobiles;

(4) Whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for a capital loss for worthless securities in the taxable year 1966; and

(5) Whether the petitioners are liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)1 for the taxable year 1964.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts were stipulated. The stipulation of facts and exhibits are incorporated herein.

Petitioners, husband and wife, resided in Lisle, Illinois, when they filed their petition herein. On April 25, 1968, they filed joint Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, with the district director of internal revenue at Chicago, Illinois.

Petitioner James Gilmore (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "petitioner"), his wife and their daughter, were the sole shareholders of a corporation organized under Illinois law in 1954 under the name of Gilmore Enterprises. It was a distributor for Union Carbide Company of liquid nitrogen.

In order to provide funds for the daily operations of Gilmore Enterprises, petitioners, in 1960, borrowed from Westchester Savings*281 and Loan $18,000 secured by a mortgage on the real estate occupied by Gilmore Enterprises located in Hillside, Illinois, the title to which was in Gertrude Gilmore, a petitioner herein.

Petitioners advanced the $18,000 to Gilmore Enterprises but received no note or other evidence of indebtedness in exchange. Gilmore Enterprises paid no interest to petitioners in connection with the advance. In 1962 Union Carbide ceased to extend credit to Gilmore Enterprises for purchases of liquid nitrogen.

At that time Gilmore Enterprises owed Union Carbide approximately $60,000. Union Carbide presented Gilmore Enterprises with a bill for $90,000 representing back rental on liquid nitrogen containers. As a result of the unpaid debts of Gilmore Enterprises, petitioners were forced to assign for the benefit of creditors all of the assets of Gilmore Enterprises. All of its books and records were surrendered to Midwest Credit Management Association (Midwest Credit), which assumed the management and operations of the business of Gilmore Enterprises. At the time of the assignment, petitioners filed as creditors and received approximately $9 on their claim. Midwest Credit later organized a corporation, *282 Liquified Industrial Gas, Inc. (Liquified), to conduct the business formerly conducted by Gilmore Enterprises. Petitioner was employed by Liquified and continued in such employment during the years before us. Petitioners' real property securing the Westchester Savings loan, was transferred to either Liquified or to an individual named Lillis in the assignment proceedings and the transferee assumed the unpaid balance of the loan.

On their Federal income tax returns petitioners claimed the following amounts as deductions for business losses from Gilmore Enterprises:

1963$ 5,468.20
19647,275.79
19657,042.39
19663,334.24
Total$23,120.62

The following note was attached to their 1963 return:

Have taken a business loss deduction on my returns for these past years because I lost $63,000. that I loaned to Gilmore Enterprises, Inc. 4109 May St. Hillside, Illinois. This loss was in January of 1962.

Mr. Embrie of Chicago Midwest Credit Management Association 165 N. Canal St. Chicago, Ill. has the company books and can verify this loss.

Petitioners claimed no loss relating to Gilmore Enterprises on their 1962 income tax return. Respondent disallowed*283

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

Related

Spring City Foundry Co. v. Commissioner
292 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Boehm v. Commissioner
326 U.S. 287 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States
398 F.2d 694 (Third Circuit, 1968)
Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
39 F.2d 540 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Nulex, Inc. v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 769 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Estate of Lamberth v. Commissioner
31 T.C. 302 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Estate of Krampf v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 293 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Robertson v. Commissioner
28 B.T.A. 635 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1933)
Blackmer v. Commissioner
70 F.2d 255 (Second Circuit, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1974 T.C. Memo. 41, 33 T.C.M. 196, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-commissioner-tax-1974.