Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd. v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 355, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2691
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedJanuary 16, 1926
DocketDocket No. 3647.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 B.T.A. 355 (Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 3 B.T.A. 355, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2691 (bta 1926).

Opinion

[357]*357OPINION.

Littleton:

The questions presented by this appeal are: (1) Whether the additional compensation of $6,773.89 was a legal deduction for the year 1918; and (2) whether the profits tax of a foreign corporation should be computed under the provisions of [358]*358section 301 or section 328, subject to the limitations provided in section 302 of the Revenue Act of 1918.

As to the first point, it appears that for several years it had been the practice of the home office in England to enter into an agreement by correspondence with the manager of the American branch for the payment of additional compensation based upon a certain percentage of the profits. During the year 1918 the taxpayer incurred liability for the additional compensation for services actually rendered and the same accrued within that year. Due to the fact that the auditor’s report of the American branch had to be approved by the home office, the books were not closed'for some time after the end of the year; and, as the additional compensation for the year was based upon the profits, it was not entered upon the books until the auditor’s report had been approved. The auditor’s report was completed March 8, 1919; and, before it had been approved, the manager of the American branch made a return for the calendar year 1918 and deducted $8,086.81, which he regarded as the amount of additional compensation to which he was entitled for the year under the terms of the agreement. The home office, however, deducted an amount as Federal taxes before subjecting the profits to percentages for the determination of additional compensation. This resulted in the additional compensation being reduced to $6,773.89, which was the amount disallowed by the Commissioner and now claimed as a deduction under section 234 (a) (1).

The change in the final amount to be paid upon audit of the accounts by the home office did not affect the deductibility of the additional compensation from gross income. It was an ordinary and necessary expense incurred during the year 1918, as compensation for personal services actually rendered, and as such was a legal deduction. Any adjustment in the amount of additional compensation by the home office affected only the amount and not the right to the deduction. Appeal of American Express Co., 2 B. T. A. 498. Whatever change was made in the taxable income as a result of an increase or decrease of the amount of the additional compensation was subject to correction upon audit or by an amended return. Appeal of Producers Fuel Co., 1 B. T. A. 202. The taxpayer should, therefore, be allowed the deduction of $6,773.89. .

The next question is whether the provisions of section 301 of the Revenue Act of 1918 are applicable to foreign corporations, or whether the profits tax of every foreign corporation must be computed under the provisions of section 328 of that Act. By reference to section 230 we find that an income tax at certain rates is imposed upon the net income of every corporation, and by reference to sec[359]*359tion 236 we find that only domestic corporations are allowed a credit of $2,000. Section 301 imposing the profits tax provides:

That in lieu of the tax imposed by Title II of the Revenue Act of 1917, but in addition to the other taxes imposed by this Act, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for the taxable year 1918 upon the net income of every corporation a tax equal to the sum of the following:
⅜ ⅜ £ £ £ £ *

Section 302 prescribes a limitation upon the tax imposed by section 301, as follows:

That the tax imposed by subdivision (a) of section 301 shall in no case he more than 30 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of $3,000 and not in excess of $20,000, plus 80 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of $20,000; the tax imposed by subdivision (b) of section 301 shall in no case be more than 20 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of $3,000 and not in excess of $20,000 plus 40 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of $20,000; and the above limitations shall apply to the taxes computed under subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 301, respectively, when used in subdivision (c) of that section. Nothing in this section shall be construed in such manner as to increase the tax imposed by section 301.,

Section 304 (b) states that “Any corporation whose net income for the taxable year is less than $3,000 shall be exempt from taxation under this title.”

Section 310 defines the pre-war period and section 311, relating to the war-profits credit, declares:

(a) That the war-profits credit shall consist of the sum of:
(1) A specific exemption of $3,000; and
(2) An amount equal to the average net income of the corporation for the prewar period, plus or minus, as the ease may be, 10 per centum of the difference between the average invested capital for the prewar period and the invested capital for the taxable year.
£ • £ £ £ £ £ £
(e) A foreign corporation shall not be entitled to a specific exemption of $3,000.

Section 312 defines the excess-profits credit as follows:

That the excess-profits credit shall consist of a specific exemption of $3,000 plus an amount equal to 8 per centum of the invested capital for the taxable year.
A foreign corporation shall not be entitled to the specific exemption of $3,000.

The above-quoted provisions, if taken alone, would indicate that Congress intended that the profits tax upon the net income of foreign corporations should be computed under section 301, subject to the limitations provided in section 302, in the same manner as domestic corporations. However, these sections should be construed in the light of other sections under Title III relating to the same subject-matter, and in the light of the changes made in the law as it existed [360]*360at the time of the enactment of the Eevenne Act of 1918. Section 827 of the 1918 Act reads in part as follows:

That in the following cases the tax shall he determined as provided in section 328:
* * * * * * *
(b) In the case of a foreign corporation.

Congress further provided for the determination of profits tax in the cases specified in section 327 under section 328 in the following manner:

(a) * * * In the ease of a foreign corporation the tax shall be computed without deducting the specific exemption of $3,000 either for the taxpayer or the representative corporations.

The taxpayer contends that, in the various sections relating to the profits tax preceding section 327, Congress used language clearly embracing both foreign and domestic corporations, specifically mentioning foreign corporations in connection with the tax imposed by section 301, and that subsection (b) of section 327 was for the purpose of bringing foreign corporations within the class of corporations entitled to claim the benefits of the relief provisions of the Act.

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

Related

Savage v. Commissioner
1970 T.C. Memo. 158 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
McGlue v. Commissioner
41 B.T.A. 1186 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)
Pierce Oil Corp. v. Commissioner
32 B.T.A. 403 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd. v. Commissioner
3 B.T.A. 355 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 B.T.A. 355, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josiah-wedgwood-sons-ltd-v-commissioner-bta-1926.