Klempner v. Glenn

82 F. Supp. 626, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1089, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky
DecidedFebruary 2, 1949
DocketNo. 1246
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 F. Supp. 626 (Klempner v. Glenn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Klempner v. Glenn, 82 F. Supp. 626, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1089, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062 (W.D. Ky. 1949).

Opinion

SHELLBOURNE, Chief Judge.

The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in this action:

Findings of Fact.

1. The plaintiff, herein sometimes referred to as the “taxpayer,” now is and at all times material to this action was a resident of Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.

2. The defendant now is and at all times material to this action has been the duly qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Kentucky.

3. This action is one for the recovery of internal revenue taxes.

4. The plaintiff, during all of the calendar years 1942 and through August 31, 1943, was in partnership with his brother, Emil Klempner, under the firm name of Klempner Bros, and devoted his full time to said business. Such partnership was engaged in the junk business. It kept its books and made its income tax returns upon a fiscal year basis ending each year on August 31. '

5. The plaintiff, about November, 1941, made an application to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for permission to change the basis of filing his income tax returns from a calendar year to a fiscal year basis, but it does not appear from the evidence or the record that such application was ever passed upon, that such approval was ever given or that the taxpayer was ever notified as to any action taken by the Commissioner. The allegations of the Amendment to Answer filed by the defendant were automatically denied under the Federal rules of practice without any reply being filed by the plaintiff and no proof was introduced by the defendant as to this matter..

6. During the years 1942 and 1943, the plaintiff did not make any record or records of transactions resulting in the receipt of income or any items being deductible for purposes of his Federal income tax liability. He did retain some receipts executed by other persons showing the payment by the plaintiff of certain amounts for such purposes as charities, repairs and expenses in connection with his automobile, legal fees and taxes. At the time of the trial the taxpayer did not have a receipt book issued by the Royal Industrial Bank showing amounts of interest paid to such bank, but at the time such payments were made to the Royal Industrial Bank such bank gave to the taxpayer, a cardboard folded over on which were indicated by the bank the amounts of payments as made to it.

7. The books of the partnership as partnership records showed the amount of income from the partnership due for each of such years to the plaintiff.

8. In two instances the taxpayer, because of his illness, requested the bookkeeper of the partnership as a personal favor to him to pay a nurse the sum of $6 [628]*628and the Wilcox Motor Company the sum of $40 with cash turned over by the taxpayer to such bookkeeper. The taxpayer did not know how the bookkeeper would handle the transaction, and such payments were not made to the bookkeeper with any intention or desire that any record of the transaction should be made on the partnership books. It would have been possible for the bookkeeper to have carried out the instructions of the taxpayer by sending cash or her own personal check to the creditors of the taxpayer to be paid. As a matter of fact, the cash paid to the bookkeeper by the taxpayer was deposited in the firm account, and the firm paid such creditors. The bookkeeper as a partnership record entered the receipt of such cash and the amount of such payments in the ledger on the page headed “Harry W. Klempner — Drawing Account.”' The taxpayer did not know that such payments were handled in this manner.

Without any request from the taxpayer, the bookkeeper for the partnership made payments of Kentucky income taxes owing by the taxpayer and entered such payments in the books of the partnership. The taxpayer did not know such entry had been • made.

9. No bank account was kept by the tax- ' payer at any time material to this case.

10. As to the only income other than partnership income and as to 26 deductions out of a total of 30 deductions taken on the 1942 and 1943 income tax returns there was no written record made by anyone at all in any books and only 4 of the total of such deductions appeared on the books of the partnership. There were 15 deductions each year and 2 of same each year appeared on the books of the partnership as partnership records. One of such 2 deductions each year was a part of charitable contributions made by the partnership allowable to the taxpayer and required by law to be kept in the partnership books. The other deduction each year was the Kentucky income taxes of the taxpayer herein-before referred to.

11. No item of income and no deduction appearing on the taxpayer’s 1942 Federal income tax return appeared on the books of the partnership prior to September 1, 1942, other than charitable contributions made by the partnership, a part of which was deductible on the taxpayer’s individual return.

12. No regular or other books of account were kept by the taxpayer at any time material to this case. The books of the partnership were not the books of the taxpayer as an individual. The bookkeeper for the partnership was never requested to keep any books for the taxpayer and was not his agent to keep any books for him as an individual.

13. No application was made by the taxpayer to change the basis of filing his income tax return from a calendar year basis to a fiscal year basis for the year ending August 31, 1943.

14. The taxpayer, on or about November 15, 1942, filed in the office of the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue an income tax return for himself disclosing an income tax liability of $19,004.32, which sum was paid by him to the Collector on or before the date or dates on which interest or penalties would accrue and the Collector, as required by law, transmitted same to the Treasury of the United States.

15. Thereafter the Commissioner of Internal Revenue caused an audit to be made of the return of the taxpayer and determined that the taxpayer was on a fiscal year basis and that an income tax return should be made for the period from January 31, 1942, instead of for the calendar year of 1942.

16. An amended income tax return dated November 20, 1944, was filed on a cash basis by the taxpayer for the calendar year 1942 showing the correct computation of the tax to be $23,128.85.

17. During the calendar year of 1942 the taxpayer received no income other than $47,234.77, which he received from the partnership of Klempner Bros. During the same year the taxpayer made charitable contributions amounting to $355.65, consisting of $233.65 made through the partnership of Klempner Bros, and $122 to Congregation Anshei Sfard, expended $49.29 for interest to the Royal Industrial Bank, paid taxes of $456.68, consisting of $416.44 Kentucky income taxes, $4.64 state of Keti-[629]*629tucky and Jefferson County taxes, $10.01 city of Louisville taxes, $5 amusement taxes, $5 automobile license, $7.09 automobile use tax, $1 for automobile driver’s license and $7.50 for gasoline taxes, expended $11 for automobile insurance, had $328.86 depreciation of his automobile and paid or lost $96 for miscellaneous items, consisting of $66 for legal fees for business purposes and a $30 loss by theft. He used his automobile as to' which such expenses and depreciation were incurred 60% in his business and 40% for pleasure. The taxpayer was single -during all of the year 1942.

18.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 F. Supp. 626, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1089, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klempner-v-glenn-kywd-1949.