Indiana Limestone Co. v. Smith

85 F. Supp. 652, 38 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 461, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2521
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedAugust 3, 1949
DocketCiv. No. 1614
StatusPublished

This text of 85 F. Supp. 652 (Indiana Limestone Co. v. Smith) 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
Indiana Limestone Co. v. Smith, 85 F. Supp. 652, 38 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 461, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2521 (S.D. Ind. 1949).

Opinion

BALTZELL, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the Court now states its Special Findings of Fact (hereby adopting the Stipulation of the parties as part of such Special Findings of Fact), as follows:

Stipulation.

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties to this • litigation that for the purpose of this action, the following facts are true and that when this stipulation, or when any part thereof is introduced in evidence, it shall have the same force and effect as though said facts had been proved by competent evidence. This stipulation is, however, made subject to the following conditions and agreements:

(a) Any party hereto shall have the right to object to any part of this stipulation on any ground other than that such portion so objected to has not been proved by the best evidence, or, in case of a written instrument, that the original thereof has not been produced or offered.

(b) Any party hereto shall have the right to offer additional evidence deemed material to such offering parties cause of action or defense, or any evidence supplementing or explaining any of the stipulated facts so long as not contradictory of any stipulated fact.

Stipulated Facts.

1. At the time of the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs, Indiana Lime[653]*653stone Company, Inc., and Ileo Ordnance Corporations were, and are now, both corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, having their general office and principal place of business in the City of Bedford, in Lawrence County, State of Indiana, and were at said time and are citizens of the State of Indiana.

2. The defendant, Will H. Smith, individually, and as the former Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Indiana, at the time of the commencement of this action, was, and is now, a citizen and resident of Indianapolis, in Marion County, State of Indiana, and from July 1, 1933 until October 31, 1945, he was the duly appointed, qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the Treasury Department of the United' States of America for the Collection District of Indiana, which Collection District has at all times had its office in the City of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, within the jurisdiction of this Court.-,

3. Jurisdiction of this cause of action is conferred upon this Court and authorized by Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 41, Clauses (5) and (20) [now §§ 1346, 2401, 2402].'

4. This action, arises under Sections 600 to 605, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the U.S.C.A. §§ 600-605, relating to Declared Value Excess-Profits taxes as the same existed during the year 1943, and is further based upon Sections 3771 and 3772 of Title 26 U.S.C.A.,' relating to the recovery of-taxes and interest which taxes plaintiffs claim were erroneously and illegally assessed and collected by said defendant while he was acting as such Collector for the District of Indiana.

5. The, Declared Value ExcessrProfits Tax which plaintiffs seek to recover herein arose out of a transaction involving Ileo Ordnance Corporation andIndiana Limestone ’ Corporation, the, predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, Indiana Limestone Company, Inc., ánd Defense Plant Corporation wherein certain real estate and buildings, .known generally as the Salem and Walters mills, were transferred and conveyed by the Indiana Limestone Corporation to said Ileo Ordnance Corporation on.April 1,. 1942, by a deed of conveyance, a true copy of which is identified as plaintiffs’ Exhibit C; on July 22, 1942, Ileo Ordnance Corporation executed and delivered a deed of conveyance for the same property to Indiana Limestone Corporation, a true copy of such deed being identified as plaintiffs’ Exhibit D; on February 23, 1943, Indiana Limestone Corporation executed and delivered a deed, of conveyance for the Salem and Walters mills to Defense Plant Corporation, a true copy of such deed being identified as plaintiffs’ Exhibit E ; each of said Exhibits is made a part of this Stipulation as fully as if set out herein or attached hereto.

6. That the Revenue Department of the United States, and the defendant, while he was collector as aforesaid, claimed and asserted that the profit on this sale and transaction, which was $134,713.75, should have been included in the net income of Ileo Ordnance Corporation for declared value excess-profits tax purposes, rather than in the income of the Indiana Limestone Corporation, for said fiscal year which ended on November 30, 1943; such item and amount was treated by plaintiffs as income to Indiana Limestone Corporation, and was included in its income, in Schedule D, within its consolidated return with Ileo Ordnance Corporation for said fiscal year; a 1 certified photostat of such consolidated return is attached hereto and made a part hereof and identified as Joint Exhibit One; in said Schedule D the amount of such profit was reported as $109,873.52, but the correct amount was later determined by revenue agents’ examination to be $134,-713.75.

7. The increase in such alleged tax resulting from the method used by the defendant in the collection. thereof, was included in the deficiency of $22,781.91 as determined by the Commissioner, and on September ,28, 1944, the collector made a summary demand :on the plaintiffs for immediate payment of said amount and such payment, was made promptly. The statutory notice of. deficiency was issued on October 18, 1944.

[654]*6548. If the plaintiffs are entitled to recover against the defendants, they should recover interest according to law.

9. On the 7th day of April, 1944, the Indiana Limestone Corporation filed its verified petition in this court praying for a reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq.; proceedings were had thereon by said court which resulted in the appointment of Albert Ward, as trustee of said Indiana Limestone Corporation, in said reorganization proceedings, under cause known as No. 9413 in this court, such appointment having been made on the 21st day of April, 1944, and said Ward qualified as such trustee and acted as such in said reorganization proceeding until his final discharge on the 23d day of October, 1945.

10. That while said proceedings in reorganization were thus pending in this court, the said Ward, on August 26, 1944, as said trustee, filed his verified petition in said court wherein he alleged and ■tendered the issue that when said transfers and conveyances were .made between the Ileo - Ordnance Corporation and Indiana Limestone Corporation as aforesaid, the Ileo Ordnance Corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Indiana, Limestone Corporation, which owned all of its capital stock, and that Ileo Ordnance Corporation was merely an agency or instrumentality used by the Indiana Limestone Corporation for conducting and. carrying on certain operations and. business, of the Indiana Limestone Corporation; that due and legal notice of - the filing of the petition under Chapter X on April 7, 1944 and the pend-ency thereof, was.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 F. Supp. 652, 38 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 461, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indiana-limestone-co-v-smith-insd-1949.