Knippenberg v. Commissioner

1974 T.C. Memo. 311, 33 T.C.M. 1424, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 8
United States Tax Court·Decided December 17, 1974·No. Docket Nos. 2772-72, 3254-72·Unpublished

Opinion

JULIAN W. KNIPPENBERG AND ALICE H. KNIPPENBERG, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
JAMES S. CARROLL AND EDITH M. CARROLL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Knippenberg v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 2772-72, 3254-72
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1974-311; 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 8; 33 T.C.M. (CCH) 1424; T.C.M. (RIA) 740311;
December 17, 1974, Filed.
William H. Beck, for the petitioners.
Robert P. Ruwe, for the respondent.

FAY

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FAY, Judge: Respondent has determined the following deficiencies in and additions to the Federal income tax of petitioners:

PetitionersYearDeficiencyAdditions to Tax § 6651(a) 1
Julian W. and Alice H. Knippenberg1968$14,078.44-
1969143.94-
James S. and Edith M. Carroll196811,943.06$1,100.13
1969248.03-
*9

Concessions having been made, it remains for us to decide whether and in what amounts Julian W. Knippenberg and James S. Carroll recognized ordinary income by reason of their each having received five shares of stock in Gribbin Enterprises, Inc. FINDINGS OF FACT We incorporate herein the stipulation of facts and exhibits, appended thereto. Petitioners, the Knippenbergs, and petitioners, the Carrolls, filed joint income tax returns for the years 1968 and 1969 with the district director of internal revenue for Kentucky, and were residents of Lexington, Kentucky, when the petitions were filed herein. Julian W. Knippenberg (Knippenberg) and James S. Carroll (Carroll) 2 were equal partners in the law firm of Carroll and Knippenberg whose place of business was in Lexington, Kentucky. On October 5, 1967, that firm, acting by Carroll, entered into a contract with Eugene L. and Beatrice L. Gribbin (the Gribbins) and Joseph E. Lagrew (Lagrew), the terms of which are set forth below:

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 5th day of October, 1967,*10 by and between BEATRICE L. GRIBBIN and EUGENE L. GRIBBIN, her husband, parties of the first part, JOSEPH E. LAGREW, party of the second part, and JULIAN W. KNIPPENBERG and JAMES S. CARROLL, parties of the third part.

WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, first parties desire to have the hereinafter described real property developed by the most advantageous zoning and to be developed and sold or leased for business and/or industry, and with the understanding that first parties shall approve any and all sales and leases of said property by the hereinafter mentioned corporation. WHEREAS, second party has consented to zone and develop said property according to first parties' desire, without cost to first parties, and WHEREAS, third parties have consented to represent first and third (sic) parties and the corporation hereinafter mentioned. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreement of the parties, it is agreed as follows:

1. Second party shall cause to be filed in the name of the first parties, a petition for a zone change for the hereinafter described property as may be commensurate*11 with the land use plan of the Lexington-Fayette County Zoning Commission.

2. Second party shall organize and form a Kentucky corporation under the name of Gribbin Enterprises, Inc; said corporation shall have 100 shares of non-par stock; and said corportion shall commence business with $1,000.00.

3. The capital shares of the aforementioned corporation shall be divided as follows:

(1) Beatrice L. Gribbin and Eugene L. Gribbin, 49 non-assessable shares.

(2) Julian W. Knippenberg and/or James S. Carroll, 10 non-assessable shares.

(3) Joseph E. Lagrew, 41 assessable shares.

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

Knippenberg v. Commissioner, 1974 T.C. Memo. 311, 33 T.C.M. 1424, 1974 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 8 (tax 1974).

1974 T.C. Memo. 311 (Knippenberg v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drybrough v. United States
208 F. Supp. 279 (W.D. Kentucky, 1962)
Trianon Hotel Co. v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 156 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Husted v. Commissioner
47 T.C. 664 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)
Hooper v. Commissioner
41 B.T.A. 114 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)