Herzberg v. United States

176 F. Supp. 440, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5537, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2811
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJune 19, 1959
DocketNo. TH 58-C-48
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 F. Supp. 440 (Herzberg v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herzberg v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 440, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5537, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2811 (S.D. Ind. 1959).

Opinion

HOLDER, District Judge.

The plaintiffs’ action seeks to recover $10,529.25, plus interest, as an alleged overpayment of their income taxes for the years 1952 through 1954.

The facts were found by the Court as follows:

Prior to the death of Dr. Norman Rosenfeld, a licensed M. D., he conducted a general practice of medicine at a rented office location on an oral month to month lease at 222 Elm Street, Clinton, Indiana. Included in his valuable established practice of medicine were a large number of patients whose treatments consisted of regular weekly shots, heat treatments, diathermy, etc., which were handled by his office registered nurse, one Bertha Boatman. The decedent’s will was duly probated in the Vermillion Cir[441]*441cuit Court of Indiana and the executor thereof duly qualified. The decedent left surviving minor children for whom a guardian was appointed and duly qualified pursuant to the will. The executor immediately sought to dispose of decedent’s valuable established practice as an asset of the estate. She communicated with the American Medical Association to this effect. The plaintiff, Milton Herz-berg, and his wife were strangers, both in blood and in fact, to decedent and the executor. Dr. Milton Herzberg was a licensed practicing M. D. in Chicago, State of Illinois, and learned of the availability of the decedent’s practice through an aunt of decedent. The executor offered to sell the practice to Dr. Herzberg for a cash price which was declined. The executor and the guardian then entered into a written contract with Dr. Herz-berg on November 5, 1952, which reads as follows:

“Profit-Sharing Agreement
“Whereas, Norman B. Rosenfeld, deceased, late of Vermillion County, Indiana, had prior to his death, en-gated in the general practice of medicine in Clinton, Indiana, where he maintained an office at 222 Elm St., and
“Whereas, said decedent had ■equipped said office with an air-conditioner, furniture, fixtures, and ■other equipment of an appraised value of $1557.50 and had maintained a stock of drugs and supplies ■of an appraised value, at the time of his death, of $2902.55, and had established patient lists of considerable number and intangible value, and
“Whereas, Milton Herzberg, a ■license physician of the State of Illinois and applicant for license by "the State of Indiana, desires to assume the practice of said Norman B. Rosenfeld, upon the granting of license to practice in Indiana, and recognizes the value of said practice,
“Now, Therefore, this agreement as to the distribution of income and profit from the continuation of said practice is now made by and between Derexa Wisehart, Executrix under the will of Norman B. Rosenfeld, and Pearl Cohn, guardian of the minor children (sole beneficiaries) of said Norman B. Rosenfeld, hereinafter referred to collectively as First Party, and Milton Herzberg, hereinafter referred to as Second Party. In Consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements, hereinafter contained, said parties do now contract and agree as follows:
“1. The term of this venture shall commence on the 1st day of November, 1952 and end on the 31 day of October, 1954. The fiscal year shall commence on the 1 day of November and end on the 31 day of October next succeeding.
“2. Second Party shall procure a license to practice medicine in the State of Indiana, and during the term hereof shall engage in the general practice of medicine in the State of Indiana, and for the present, shall maintain the office heretofore occupied by Dr. Norman B. Rosenfeld at Clinton, Indiana. The location of such office may be changed from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties, or by the necessity of circumstance.
“3. First Party shall contribute to the use of the venture, the office air conditioner, other furniture and fixtures and office equipment, patient lists and records, all of which shall be kept intact and returned to First Party, at the expiration of the term of this venture, excepting only patient lists and records, which shall be retained by Second Party upon fulfillment of his obligations hereunder. First Party shall also contribute to this venture, drugs and medical supplies, now in stock at their appraised value of $2902.55, which drugs and supplies shall con[442]*442stitute an opening expendable inventory, and which shall be inventoried at the close of fiscal year at cost or market, whichever is lower, in determining profit. Upon the expiration of this venture, the inventory of drugs and supplies then on hand, at cost or market, whichever is lower, shall be determined, and First Party shall be entitled to be reimbursed in cash, the sum of $2902.-55 as the contribution of original capital by First Party. Any equipment, instruments, furniture or fixtures, the use of which is made available by Second Party shall be returned to Second Party at the expiration of the term of this venture.
“4. Second Party shall devote his entire working time to the practice of medicine hereunder, and the gross receipts of Second Party during the term hereof, received by him as professional fees or other compensation for personal services or treatment, and from the sale, dispensing or prescribing of drugs, medicines or medicinal supplies, shall constitute gross income of this venture. Regular books of account shall be kept on a cash basis provided however, that the inventory of drugs and supplies on hand shall be taken into consideration in computing profit. At the close of each fiscal year during the two year term hereof, the net profit of the venture shall be determined according to the methods and principles used in determining ordinary net income of a partnership under the Internal Revenue Code. Such net profit shall be paid and distributed to the parties hereto in the following percentage shares:
Second Party 60%
First Party 40%
Provided However, that if this arrangement should prove inequitable, and should impose an undue burden and economic hardship on Second Party, then in such event these percentages shall be subject to renegotiation on an equitable basis and if no satisfactory agreement is reached, such division of profit shall be submitted to the Circuit Court of Vermillion County, and its decision thereon shall be final.
“5. Second Party shall have sole charge of the venture, without interference in his policies or practice by First Party, and shall have the right in his sole discretion to conduct his practice of medicine as he sees fit, and during the term hereof, so long as Second Party fulfills his obligations hereunder, First Party shall not, in any way, exercise any control of the management of the venture of the methods of practice adopted by Second Party, or the fees fixed by Second Party for his services or supplies.
“6. First Party shall not be responsible, in any way, for the policies or practices adopted by Second Party, and First Party shall not be liable for any loss whatsoever arising out of the venture, in excess of the stock of drugs and supplies contributed by First Party as above recited. Second Party undertakes and agrees that in no event shall First Party’s share of profit be less than the total sum of the appraised value of the air conditioner, furniture, fixtures, equipment, drugs and supplies, amounting to $4,460.05.

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

Related

Wheeler v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 208 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F. Supp. 440, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5537, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herzberg-v-united-states-insd-1959.