Ivy Courts Realty Co. v. United States

20 F.2d 348, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6838, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2532, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7211, 6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 6838
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 1927
DocketNo. 243
StatusPublished

This text of 20 F.2d 348 (Ivy Courts Realty Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ivy Courts Realty Co. v. United States, 20 F.2d 348, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6838, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2532, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7211, 6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 6838 (2d Cir. 1927).

Opinion

MACK, Circuit Judge.

Writ of error to reverse a judgment in favor of the United States, the plaintiff, on a directed verdict in the sum of $1,258.07, which, with interest and costs, amounts to $2,183.51.

The action was to recover for additional corporation excise taxes under the provisions of section 38 of the Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 112), for the years 1909 to 1912, inclusive, for additional-income taxes under the provisions of subsection 2G- (b) of section 2 of the Revenue Act of October 3, 1913 (38 Stat. 172), for the years 1913 and 1915, and under the provisions of section 12a, third, of the Revenue Act of ,1916 (Comp. St. § 63367) for the year 1916; •

Defendant’is a New Jersey corporation, with paid-up capital stock of $2,000, which owned certain premises with three adjoining apartment houses thereon in the city of New York. The property was subject to a first and a second mortgage as security for a bonded indebtedness of defendant aggregating $567,500, with annual interest aggregating $29,025.

The sole question involved is whether the full amount of this interest actually paid was deductible from gross income as to each of these years, or whether, as contended by the government, only $100, being the interest on the paid-in capital, for each of the years 1909 to 1912, inclusive, and $14,937.50, being the interest on the paid-up capital stock, plus one-half of the interest-bearing indebtedness [349]*349for each of the years 1913, 1915, and 1916, were properly deductible.

The relevant portions of the statutes are copied in the margin.1

In Anderson v. 42 Broadway, 239 U. S. 69, 36 S. Ct. 17, 60 L. Ed. 152, the court said that “mortgage interest may, under special circumstances, be treated among the ‘ordinary and necessary expenses/ or as included among the charges ‘required to bo made as a condition to the continued use or possession of property/ * * * but interest upon the ‘bonded or other indebtedness’ of the corporation, whether such indebtedness be secured by mortgage or not, comes within the specific provision of the third clause, whose effect, in our opinion, is not in this respect limited by anything contained in the first.” Clearly there is no difference whatsoever, so far as the years 1909 to 1912 are concerned, between that ease and the present one.

As to the later years, the question is whether, under the facts in this case, the main clause or the proviso governs. This real estate, with a couple of vacant lots, constituted the entire property of the defendant corporation; the rent from the apartment bouses was its entire revenue. While it is true that the property was for years in the hands of several brokers for sale, it was not sold until 1922. In our judgment, it clearly could not be deemed the “subject of sale in ordinary business of such corporations,” or “the subject of sale or hypothecation in the ordinary business of such corporation as a dealer only in the property constituting such collateral.”

On the evidence, the court was fully justified in finding that during all that time the property was held as an investment, and not as an object of trade and sale in the ordinary business of the corporation, that the ordinary business of the corporation in fact was to keep the property rented, and not to deal in properties, although it was authorized by its charter to buy and sell real estate. As motions for á directed verdict were made by each party, the court properly directed judgment for plaintiff. ,.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway Co.
239 U.S. 69 (Supreme Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 F.2d 348, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6838, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2532, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7211, 6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 6838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivy-courts-realty-co-v-united-states-ca2-1927.