Jockmus v. United States

222 F. Supp. 781, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5278, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedJuly 22, 1963
DocketCiv. 8250
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 F. Supp. 781 (Jockmus v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jockmus v. United States, 222 F. Supp. 781, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5278, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411 (D. Conn. 1963).

Opinion

TIMBERS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (1), for refund of federal income taxes for the calendar year 1956 in amount of $31,457.16 claimed to have been erroneously assessed and collected, plus interest.

Following trial on the merits to the Court without a jury, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I

1. This is an action brought by plaintiffs, Leslie H. Jockmus and Esther N. Jockmus, who are husband and wife residing in Branford, Connecticut, for the refund of federal income taxes for the calendar year 1956 alleged by them to have been erroneously assessed and collected.

2. On or about April 8, 1957, plaintiffs timely filed a joint federal income tax return for the calendar year 1956, an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 11 hereto. Said income tax return showed a tax liability of $89,595.47, which sum was paid by plaintiffs as follows:

(a) $6,000 thereof was paid as income tax withheld by the employer of Leslie H. Jockmus;

(b) $54,000 thereof was paid prior to April 8, 1957, in installments of estimated income tax payments for the calendar year 1956; and

(c) the balance of $29,595.47 thereof was paid upon the filing of the return.

Plaintiffs kept their books and records and reported their income on the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting.

3. After audit of this return by his agents, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined deficiencies in 1956 income taxes resulting from several adjustments to the income and deduction items shown on the return.

(a) The Commissioner determined to disallow claimed deductions [783]*783in the amount of $1,200.60, which produced a deficiency in the amount of $972.48. On or about August 12, 1958, plaintiffs executed a Treasury Form 870 agreeing to the immediate assessment of a deficiency in 1956 taxes in this amount, and on February 13, 1959, this deficiency, plus interest thereon computed to September 12, 1958 in the amount of $82.-47, or a total of $1,054.75, was assessed. On February 24,1959, plaintiffs paid this amount to the District Director of Internal Bevenue. This adjustment is not in dispute in this action.

(b) After protest by plaintiffs to the Appellate Division of the Internal Bevenue Service, and as a result of further review in that Division, the Commissioner (1) disallowed interest deductions claimed on the return for “Corporate Finance and Loan Corp.” in the amount of $21,-384.38, and for “Court Finance and Loan Corp.” in the amount of $784.-58, and (2) determined that the long term capital gain reported in the amount of $31,250 for “U. S. Treasury notes $1,000,000 on face amount” should be increased by the sum of $1,250 to $32,500. The Commissioner also determined (3) that the plaintiffs’ taxable income should be increased by the sum of $10,460.-14, representing overpaid refundable interest in connection with the note to Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. dated December 21, 1955, and refused to allow plaintiffs an offsetting deduction in this amount as alleged interest paid by plaintiffs in connection with the note to Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. dated November 2, 1956. Neither the sum of $10,460.14, alleged by plaintiffs to be a proper interest deduction, nor the sum-of $10,460.14 included by the Commissioner in income as overpaid refundable interest, had been reported by plaintiffs on their returns. Based upon the aforesaid adjustments, the Commissioner determined a further deficiency in the amount of $27,569.15.

On or about October 20, 1959, plaintiffs executed a Treasury Form 870 agreeing to the immediate assessment of a deficiency in 1956 taxes in this amount, and on November 13,1959, this deficiency, plus interest computed to November 9, 1959 in the amount of $4,248.67, or a total of $31,817.82, was assessed. On November 19, 1959, plaintiffs paid this amount to the District Director. These adjustments are disputed by plaintiffs in this action.

4. (a) On or about December 10, 1959, plaintiffs filed a timely claim for refund in the amount of $27,256.65 contesting the adjustments set out in paragraph 3(b) above, an accurate copy of which claim is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A thereto. This claim was disallowed by the District Director by notice sent by registered mail dated March 3, 1960.

(b) This action is brought within the period of limitations allowed by law for the institution thereof.

II

5. On or about December 5, 1955, Harry N. Cushing, President and Treasurer of Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. of Boston, Massachusetts, wrote a letter to Max Perl. An accurate copy of the said letter is attached as Exhibit II.

6. On December 21, 1955, Max Perl, pursuant to instructions and authorization from plaintiff, Leslie H. Jock-mus, placed an order for Mr. Jockmus with Lakeside Securities Corporation (sometimes hereinafter called Lakeside) of Chicago, Illinois, for the purchase of $1,000,000 face amount 2%% U.S. Treasury Notes maturing March 15,1957, with the March 15, and September 15, 1956 coupons detached, at a price of 97%, or a total principal purchase price of $973,-750. An accurate copy of the confirmation transmitted by Lakeside to Mr. Jockmus is attached as Exhibit III.

7. On or about December 21, 1955, Mr. Jockmus transmitted a letter to [784]*784Lakeside (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit IV). On or about the same date, Mr. Jockmus transmitted a letter to Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit V). On or about the same date, Mr. Jockmus executed and transmitted a promissory note to Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit VI).

8. On or about the same date Mr. Jockmus executed and transmitted a promissory note to Court Finance and Loan Corp. of Boston, Massachusetts, in the amount of $30,000 (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit VII). Court Finance and Loan Corp. issued a check in this amount dated December 21, 1955, to the order of Leslie H. Jock-mus (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit VIII), which Mr. Jock-mus received, endorsed and deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York City.

9. On or about this date Mr. Jockmus executed a check in the amount of $41,-384.38 dated December 21, 1955, drawn on the Chase Manhattan Bank to the order of Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. (an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit IX), and transmitted this check to Corporate Finance and Loan Corp., which check was received, endorsed and deposited by Corporate Finance and Loan Corp. in its account at the Pilgrim Trust Company in Boston, Massachusetts.

10. On December 21, 1955, Livingstone & Company, of Boston, Massachusetts, in consideration of $1,250 to be paid on or before September 15, 1956, granted to Jockmus an irrevocable option to sell to it on September 15, 1956 at a price of 100%, $1,000,000 U.S. Treasury 2%% Notes due March 15, 1957. An accurate copy of the letter granting this option, dated December 21, 1955, is attached as Exhibit X.

11. The U.S. Treasury Notes ordered purchased by Mr. Perl for the account of Mr.

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

Related

Shapiro v. United States
227 F. Supp. 822 (D. Massachusetts, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 F. Supp. 781, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5278, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jockmus-v-united-states-ctd-1963.