Levinson v. Commissioner

3 T.C.M. 1277, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 4, 1944
DocketDocket Nos. 1610, 1611, 1687, 1688.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 3 T.C.M. 1277 (Levinson v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Levinson v. Commissioner, 3 T.C.M. 1277, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19 (tax 1944).

Opinion

Edwin D. Levinson v. Commissioner. Edwin D. Levinson and Gertrude Levinson v. Commissioner. Jacques Coe (Formerly Jacques S. Cohen) v. Commissioner. Edwin H. Woarms v. Commissioner.
Levinson v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 1610, 1611, 1687, 1688.
United States Tax Court
1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19; 3 T.C.M. (CCH) 1277; T.C.M. (RIA) 44396;
December 4, 1944
*19 Louis F. Lee, Esq., for Edwin D. Levinson and Gertrude Levinson, Petitioners. Aaron Holman, Esq., and J. Stanley Halperin, Esq., for Jacques Coe and Edwin H. Woarms, Petitioners. E. C. Algire, Esq., and Scott A. Dahlquist, Esq., for the respondent.

STERNHAGEN

In Docket No. 1610 an income tax deficiency of $10,072.88 was determined as to Edwin D. Levinson for 1939, and in Docket No. 1611 a deficiency of $432.27 was determined on a joint return as to Levinson and his wife for 1940. Levinson contends that the gain in an amount received by him in each year under a partnership agreement because of the decrease in value of a Stock Exchange seat was a long term capital gain.

In Docket Nos. 1687 and 1688 deficiencies in income taxes of $5,463.52 and $2,094.41, respectively, for 1939 and 1940, as to Jacques Coe, and $4,272.48 for 1939 as to Woarms, result from the disallowance of deductions taken for amounts paid by the petitioners to Levinson by reason of the same partnership provision.

Findings of Fact

Edwin D. Levinson filed an individual income tax return for 1939, and he and his wife, Gertrude Levinson, filed a joint income tax return for 1940, in the Second District of New York. Both*20 returns were on the cash basis.

Jacques Coe, formerly named Jacques S. Cohen, is a resident of New York City and filed his income tax returns for 1939 and 1940 on the cash basis in the Second District of New York. Edwin H. Woarms is a resident of New York City and filed his income tax return for 1939 in the Second District of New York.

Levinson, in 1918, at a cost of $51,600, acquired a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. On December 17, 1925, a written agreement of partnership was made by Jesse Baar, Edwin D. Levinson, Jacques S. Cohen (whose name was later changed to Jacques Coe), and Edwin H. Woarms, to engage in the stock and bond brokerage business in New York City under the name of Baar, Cohen (later changed to Coe) & Co. The contract provided, inter alia, that on or before February 1, 1926, each party was to contribute to the capital of the co-partnership a specified minimum sum in cash and that Levinson

"shall further contribute to the copartnership the use of his New York Stock Exchange membership and/or seat, but the ownership thereof shall always be retained by him. As compensation for such use, the copartnership shall temporarily pay him a sum equal to six percent*21 (6%) of One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($125,000), such payments to be made quarterly beginning April 1st, 1926. At the end of the copartnership year, an average shall be struck of the selling price of all such Stock Exchange seats sold during that year. A sum equal to six percent (6%) of such average selling price shall represent the actual compensation payable to the party of the third part [Levinson] for the use of his seat and there shall accordingly and as soon as ascertainable be paid by the copartnership to him or by him to the copartnership, such sum as may be necessary to adjust or correct the temporary payment aforesaid. All compensation paid by the copartnership pursuant to this paragraph Third shall be charged to its expense account.

"Fourth: - Notwithstanding the retention by the party of the third part [Levinson] of the ownership of his said Stock Exchange seat, the copartnership shall in manner following benefit by any increase over, and hold him harmless against any loss, respecting its 1925 market value which, for the purposes thereof, shall be taken as represented by the selling price on the last sale of any such seat in the year 1925. Upon the termination*22 of this agreement (unless the same be renewed by all of the parties, and, in such case, upon the termination of the final renewal agreement between all of the parties), or upon the dissolution of this or any renewed copartnership between all of the parties, whichever event shall first occur, the market value of said seat shall be determined by taking the selling price on the last next preceding sale of a seat on said Stock Exchange. Any excess of such selling price over and above the aforesaid 1925 market value shall be credited to such copartnership. Any excess of such 1925 market value over and above the selling price last referred to shall be borne by and charged to said copartnership."

This partnership continued until December 31, 1927, when the business was taken over by a new partnership between the members of the old partnership and Frederick A. Fendel. Under this agreement all the assets of the old firm were sold to the new firm which assumed all the liabilities and obligations of the old firm as of December 31, 1927. Each partner was required to contribute to the capital a stated minimum sum or to transfer his credit on the books of the old firm in an amount sufficient for*23 that purpose. The agreement provided that Levinson "shall further contribute to the new firm the use of his New York Stock Exchange membership but the ownership thereof shall always be retained by him" and that the new firm was to pay him as "compensation for such use" six per cent of $200,000, which amount was subject to adjustment based upon the average selling price of all seats at the end of each partnership year.

"By contributing the use of his membership in the New York Stock Exchange said party of the third part [Levinson] expressly agrees that in so far as may be necessary for the protection of the creditors of said new firm said membership shall be deemed to be an asset of said new firm, but not otherwise."

This provision was pursuant to a rule adopted in October, 1927, by the New York Stock Exchange. The partnership agreement further provided:

"SEVENTH: Notwithstanding the retention by the party of the third part of the ownership of his said Stock Exchange Membership, the old firm shall in manner following benefit by any increase over and shall hold him harmless against any decrease from its 1925 market value.

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

Related

Munson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
100 F.2d 363 (Second Circuit, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 T.C.M. 1277, 1944 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levinson-v-commissioner-tax-1944.