Lustig v. United States

134 Ct. Cl. 351
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 6, 1956
DocketNo. 330-53
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 134 Ct. Cl. 351 (Lustig v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lustig v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 351 (cc 1956).

Opinion

Laramorb, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff sues to recover income taxes for the year 1947 in the amount of $23,571.34, with interest. The plaintiff kept his boobs and filed his returns on the cash receipts and disbursements basis and used the calendar, year as his annual accounting period. The plaintiff contends that he overpaid his income taxes for 1947 because he failed to take a deduction for interest paid during that year. A timely claim for refund was filed, rejected, and this suit followed.

The facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff owned or controlled several corporations known collectively as the Longchamps Chain of restaurants^ In August of 1946 plaintiff was assessed $1,931,435.37, and the corporations were assessed $6,461,563.50 for deficiencies in Federal tax for the taxable years 1940 through 1944, plus penalties and interest. The taxpayers disputed the amount of these liabilities and negotiations were entered into by representatives of the taxpayers and the Commissioner of Internal Nevenue which culminated in a closing agreement dated September 27, 1946. This 1946 closing agreement specified that the correct amount of the deficiencies in tax and penalties for the taxable years 1940 through 1944 was $808,326.77 with respect to plaintiff, and $4,958,-894.18 with respect to the corporations. This closing agreement provided that plaintiff and the corporate taxpayers were jointly and severally liable for all the taxes.

A substantial portion of the corporations’ tax liabilities had been paid prior to the 1946 closing agreement, and both plaintiff and the corporations made installment payments [353]*353on their liabilities from time to time in conformance with the terms of that agreement.

In April 1947 the Commissioner assessed against plaintiff an income tax deficiency for 1945 in the amount of $41,494.31, with interest thereon in the amount of $2,694.29, or a total of $44,188.60. Deficiencies and interest thereon were also assessed against the corporations for the year 1945 in the total amount of $154,123.91.

In February 1947 the Longchamps restaurants lost their liquor licenses. As a result of the loss of the licenses, it was anticipated that the income from the business would lessen materially and that the business might operate at a loss. The plaintiff was trying to find a buyer for the Longchamps Chain, and to facilitate a sale it was proposed to the Commissioner that another closing agreement be entered into by which a payment could be made in complete satisfaction of all outstanding liabilities of the taxpayers.

By an agreement of sale, dated June 30, 1947, between plaintiff and the Fornow Corporation, as amended by an agreement dated July 7, 1947, plaintiff sold to the Fornow Corporation the total issued and outstanding stock of Henry Lustig Co., Inc. Henry Lustig Co., Inc. owned all the stock of Restaurant & Patisseries Longchamps Inc., which owned all the stock of the other corporate taxpayers.

On August 7, 1947, the Commissioner entered into a closing agreement with the Fornow Corporation and plaintiff and his corporations under which the Government agreed to close all the liabilities for income, declared value excess profits, excess profits taxes, and personal holding company surtaxes, together with penalties and interest, of all the corporation taxpayers for all periods prior to July 1, 1947, and for plaintiff individually for all periods prior to January 1, 1947, for the payment to it of $3,000,000 in cash and the delivery of four notes of the Fornow Corporation in the amount of $50,000 each, which notes were to mature annually, the first to mature in July of 1948.

The $3,000,000 in cash was to be paid, and the $200,000 in notes was to be delivered, to the Government by the Fornow Corporation for and on behalf of plaintiff and the corporate taxpayers, pursuant to the agreement of sale be[354]*354tween plaintiff and Fomow Corporation. This 1947 closing agreement did not specify how the payments to be made under it were to be allocated as among the accounts of the various taxpayers.

The $3,000,000 in cash was paid in 1947, one $50,000 note was paid in 1948, and the balance of the notes ($150,000) were paid in 1949.

When the 1947 closing agreement was entered into the plaintiff’s total individual tax liability, aside from his joint and several liability for the corporate taxpayers’ taxes, was $838,317.14. This sum included both assessed and unas-sessed taxes, penalties, and interest. Of this sum, $770,780.88 represented taxes and penalties, and $67,537.26 represented interest. The total amount of the taxes, penalties, and interest owed by plaintiff and the corporate taxpayers at the time the 1947 closing agreement was entered into, excluding consideration of the taxable year 1947, was $3,492,984.93. These sums were determined for plaintiff by an agent of the Internal Revenue Service, and defendant does not except to them.

It was anticipated by all concerned that the corporate taxpayers would operate at a substantial loss after losing their liquor licenses in February of 1947. The taxpayers’ representative, in the negotiations resulting in the 1947 closing agreement, believed that these operating losses would be sufficient to offset all liability for taxes, penalties, and interest owed by the corporations except for those owed under the 1946 closing agreement, and that no moire than $3,000,000 would be due from all the taxpayers for the period covered by the 1947 closing agreement after the expected operating losses of the corporations were taken into account. This view was communicated to the Internal Revenue Bureau and the prospect of the operating losses by the corporate taxpayers, because of the loss of their liquor licenses, was taken into account by the parties in reaching the 1947 closing agreement. A tentative agreement was reached fixing the total amount to be paid by plaintiff and the corporate taxpayers at $3,000,000. This sum was subsequently increased to $3,200,000.

[355]*355The plaintiff contends that $67,537.26 of the amount paid under the 1947 closing agreement was paid as interest and is therefore deductible under section 23 (b)1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended (26 U. S. C. § 23). The plaintiff argues that the total amount paid under the 1947 closing agreement represented the total correct liability of plaintiff and the corporate taxpayers and that there was not a compromise settlement whereby a lump-sum payment of part of the total liability was accepted in satisfaction of the whole. The plaintiff also argues, however, that if there was a compromise, the compromise related only to the corporate taxpayers and that plaintiff’s individual taxes, penalties, and interest were paid in full.

The defendant contends that the 1947 closing agreement was a compromise of plaintiff’s and the corporate taxpayers’ liabilities; further, that no allocation of the amount paid by all the taxpayers can be made and therefore no interest deduction should be allowed.

In connection with plaintiff’s contention that there was no compromise, defendant points out that the correct liability of the corporate taxpayers could not be determined at the time of the 1947 closing agreement because the effect of the anticipated operating losses of the corporate taxpayer was unknown.

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

Related

Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner
52 T.C. 420 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
Brink v. Commissioner
39 T.C. 602 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Ct. Cl. 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lustig-v-united-states-cc-1956.