Lodi Iron Works, Inc. v. Commissioner
This text of 29 T.C. 696 (Lodi Iron Works, Inc. 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.
Opinion
OPINION.
The sole question presented is whether respondent correctly determined that the assets received by petitioner from the Lodi Iron Works partnership in return for stock were assets received in a nontaxable exchange within the meaning of section 112 (b) (5), I. R. C. 1939,1 and thus should be awarded the same basis for computing depreciation as they would have in the hands of the transferor partnership.2
To fall within the provisions of section 112 (b) (5) the property must be transferred solely in exchange for stock or securities, the transferor or transferors must be in control of the corporation immediately after the exchange, and, in the case of an exchange by two or more persons, the amount of stock and securities received by each must be substantially in proportion to his interest in the property prior to the exchange.3
For the purposes of this section, “control” is defined as—
the ownership of stock possessing at least 80 per centum of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and at least 80 per centum of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of the corporation[4]
It was represented to the California corporation commissioner that the net value of the assets transferred from the Lodi Iron Works partnership to petitioner was approximately $70,000. This figure was reflected on the financial statement incorporated in the permit to issue stock granted by the corporation commissioner. It was later learned that the net value of these assets had been overstated and they were given a corrected value of approximately $49,000.
The California Corporate Securities Law provides, inter alia, that—
Every security of its own issue sold or issued by a company with the authorization of the commissioner but which has been sold or issued in nonconformity with any provision in the permit authorizing the issuance or sale of the security is void.[5]
Petitioner contends that since the permit granted by the California corporation commissioner did not reflect the true value of the assets acquired from the Lodi Iron Works partnership, stock issued by the petitioner was not issued in conformity with the permit and was void. Consequently, petitioner contends the transaction between the partnership and petitioner was not an exchange of stock or securities for assets, control of petitioner was not vested in the transferor partnership, and therefore section 112 (b) (5) does not apply.
We find this argument to be without merit. The petitioner may not rely upon its self-asserted failure to comply with its own State law to avoid the effect of a Federal tax statute. Angelus Building & Investment Co., 20 B. T. A. 667 (1930), affd. 57 F. 2d 130 (C. A. 9), certiorari denied 286 U. S. 562; Osburn California Corporation v. Welch, 39 F. 2d 41 (C. A. 9, 1930), certiorari denied 282 U. S. 850; California Iron Yards Co. v. Commissioner, 47 F. 2d 514 (C. A. 9, 1931).
We must consider the stock as of the time it was issued — 7,000 shares of capital stock, 3,500 shares to each of two equal partners— at a stated par value of $10 per share issued during September 1946 in exchange for the assets of the Lodi Iron Works partnership. Angelus Building & Investment Co., supra. 3,000 additional shares were placed in escrow for the benefit of the transferor partners.
It is obvious that at the time of or immediately after this transaction the block' of stock transferred to the partners amounted to more than 80 per cent of the total issued. The burden of proof of error rests upon the petitioner. On the record it must be concluded that immediately after the exchange the transferor partners were in control of petitioner as defined in section 112 (h), supra. For purposes of determining control, only stock actually issued as of the basic date is considered, and the statutory words “immediately after the exchange” require control for no extended period; in fact, momentary control is sufficient. American Bantam Car Co., 11 T. C. 397 (1948), affd. 177 F. 2d 513 (C. A. 3, 1949), certiorari denied 339 U. S. 920. The fact that subsequently additional stock was issued to the public for cash does not affect this conclusion. Likewise, the fact that subsequently new stock was issued in exchange for the above stock did not revoke or rescind the original issue for which the assets were actually exchanged.
The transfer of the assets of the Lodi Iron Works partnership to petitioner qualifies as an exchange of stock for assets under the provisions of section 112 (b) (5), I. R. C. 1939. Therefore, the basis of the assets received by petitioner from the transferor partnership is the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor.6
Petitioner argues on brief that respondent, by failing to alter petitioner’s deductions for depreciation on the return for the fiscal year ended May 31, 1951, has waived his right to object to the same basis for the other years involved in his determination. This is in essence an argument by estoppel and as such must fail. No evidence was produced of petitioner’s reliance upon respondent’s act, nor was estoppel specially pleaded. Estate of Thomas E. Steere, 22 T. C. 79 (1954), affirmed sub nom. Rhode Island Hosp. Tr. Co. v. Commissioner, 219 F. 2d 923 (C. A. 1, 1955).
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 T.C. 696, 1958 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lodi-iron-works-inc-v-commissioner-tax-1958.