Hooks v. Commissioner

3 T.C.M. 899, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 132
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 22, 1944
DocketDocket Nos. 109416, 109427.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 3 T.C.M. 899 (Hooks 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
Hooks v. Commissioner, 3 T.C.M. 899, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 132 (tax 1944).

Opinion

Arthur J. Hooks v. Commissioner. W. L. Clayton v. Commissioner.
Hooks v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 109416, 109427.
United States Tax Court
1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 132; 3 T.C.M. (CCH) 899; T.C.M. (RIA) 44284;
August 22, 1944
*132 John C. White, Esq., 838 Transportation Bldg., Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. James L. Backstrom, Esq., for the respondent.

LEECH

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

LEECH, Judge: These cases were consolidated. In Docket No. 109427, the petitioner seeks a redetermination of income tax deficiencies for the calendar year 1937 in the sum of $91,756.09 and $438,251.33 for 1938 and claims overpayment for the calendar year 1938 of $127,192.46. In Docket No. 109416, petitioner seeks a redetermination of an income tax deficiency for the calendar year 1938 in the amount of $37.15.

The principal issue involved, and common to both docket numbers, is whether petitioners realized taxable income in 1938 to the extent of accumulated dividends upon and redemption values of new preferred stock and new debentures received from Anderson, Clayton & Co. for old classes of preferred stock surrendered therefor.

A second issue is whether the petitioner, W. L. Clayton, is taxable under section 22 (a) or section 167 of the Revenue Acts of 1936 and 1938, for the undistributed income of certain trusts created by him.

The proceeding was submitted upon evidence and a stipulation of facts.

Findings*133 of Fact

The facts are found as stipulated.

Petitioner, W. L. Clayton, at all times material herein, was married and residing with his wife, Susan Vaughan Clayton, at Houston, Texas.

In 1938, prior to the adoption of the plan whereby old first and second cumulative preferred stock of Anderson, Clayton & Co. (Delaware) (hereinafter called "Corporation") was exchanged for a new kind of preferred stock and debentures, petitioner, W. L. Clayton, owned in community 28,184 shares of no par common stock, 13,569.571 shares of five per cent cumulative first preferred stock and 13,618.317 shares of five per cent cumulative second preferred stock of Corporation.

Corporation was organized in 1929 pursuant to a plan of reorganization, to be the parent corporation of Anderson, Clayton & Co., a Texas Joint Stock Association (hereinafter referred to as "Association"). This was believed necessary to permit the stockholders of Association retiring from active participation in the business to retain their stock ownership without remaining personally and unlimitedly liable under Texas law. The stockholders would thus be given a security which they could sell without rendering the purchaser personally*134 liable and the enterprise would have corporate securities not carrying personal liability available to raise additional capital. It was also contemplated that the elimination of personal liability would encourage the ownership of stock by the employees. Association itself was to be continued and the personal liability of the directors actively connected with the management of that business thus retained.

Corporation was originally incorporated with an authorized capital of 300,000 shares of $100 par preferred and 105,000 shares of no par common. Two hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred twenty-three and 75/100 shares of preferred, having a total par value of $25,842.375 and 52,312.5 shares of common valued at $1 per share, or $52,312.50, were issued in exchange for 34,875 shares of Association's stock. An additional 47,687.5 shares of common were allotted to the managerial employees of Association for subscription at $1 per share. The allotment was made with relation to the amount of the common stock acquired by such employees in the exchange so that the total proposed holding should be fair and equitable and in the best interest of the business.

The issuance of preferred stock*135 for practically the full value of the assets and the creation and issuance of a low valued common stock to be held by the managerial employees was expressly designed to permit the capital to receive a specified rate of dividends, while the managerial employees would receive the equity earnings as compensation or remuneration for management. The managerial employees likewise remained, by ownership of shares in Association, fully liable for all the debts and obligations of Association, and representations to that effect were made to bankers and others.

It was the plan to gradually shift the responsibility of management and the ownership of the common stock to the younger members of the mangement. This policy was consistently pursued so that from owning 70 odd per cent of the common stock in 1930, the two principal stockholders, petitioner and M. D. Anderson, by transfers to younger members of the management had reduced their ownership of common stock to 45 per cent in 1938.

Under date of February 14, 1931, the holders of all the common stock were actively engaged in the business of Corporation. On that date they entered into an agreement with Corporation whereby the shares of common*136 stock were endorsed to M. D. Anderson, as trustee, for a period of 10 years subject to certain conditions. Record title to the stock remained in the beneficial owners who held the receipts of the trustee therefor. The conditions in this agreement may be briefly summarized as follows:

"The transfer or assignment of any part or interest except on consent of 75 per cent of the stock held by the trustee was prohibited.

"In the event of the death, and also in case of the voluntary or compulsory withdrawal of any shareholder, his shares were to be purchased by the corporation on the basis of a prescribed formula, the aggregate amount which the corporation was required to pay towards the purchase price being limited to $500,000 annually.

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

Related

Gregory v. Helvering
293 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court, 1935)
LeTulle v. Scofield
308 U.S. 415 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Helvering v. Clifford
309 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Helvering v. Southwest Consolidated Corp.
315 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Knapp Monarch Co. v. Commissioner
1 T.C. 59 (U.S. Tax Court, 1942)
Annis Furs, Inc. v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 1096 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Commissioner
44 B.T.A. 798 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)
Schoo v. Commissioner
47 B.T.A. 459 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1942)
Docherty v. Commissioner
47 B.T.A. 462 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1942)
South Atlantic Steamship Line v. Commissioner
42 B.T.A. 705 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 T.C.M. 899, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-commissioner-tax-1944.