May v. Commissioner

1972 T.C. Memo. 70, 31 T.C.M. 279, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 186
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 22, 1972
DocketDocket Nos. 2255-66, 2256-66, 2257-66, 1718-67.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1972 T.C. Memo. 70 (May 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
May v. Commissioner, 1972 T.C. Memo. 70, 31 T.C.M. 279, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 186 (tax 1972).

Opinion

Marvin M. May and Lorraine May v. Commissioner.
May v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 2255-66, 2256-66, 2257-66, 1718-67.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1972-70; 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 186; 31 T.C.M. (CCH) 279; T.C.M. (RIA) 72070;
March 22, 1972, Filed

*186 T entered into an arrangement in which he purported to purchase 13 television film episodes for an alleged purchase price of $365,000. His out-of-pocket costs were $35,000 and it was never intended that he pay any more, notwithstanding that he was theoretically obligated to pay the entire purchase price. He attempted to take depreciation deductions aggregating $365,000 over a two-year period. Held, in the circumstances of this case, this was not a bona fide purchase, and T was not entitled to the claimed deductions.

Sidney J. Matzner, 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, Calif., for the petitioners. J. Earl Gardner, for the respondent. 280

RAUM

Memorandum*187 Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in petitioners' income tax:

Calendar YearDeficiency
1959$80,205.03
196059,645.27
196176,006.88
1964380.69
The only question presented for decision is whether petitioner Marvin M. May had a depreciable interest in 13 episodes of a television film series. The Commissioner disallowed depreciation deductions in respect thereof for 1959 and 1960. All other matters in controversy in controversy 1 depend upon the answer to the foregoing question, and will be disposed of accordingly in the decisions to be entered under Rule 50.

Findings of Fact

The parties have stipulated certain facts, which, together with the attached exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioners Marvin M. May and Lorraine May are husband and wife. They filed joint Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1964 with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles, California, and*188 resided at 2244 North Edgemont Street, Los Angeles, California, at the time their petitioners herein were filed.

At all times here pertinent, Marvin M. May ("May" or "petitioner") was president and a substantial stockholder of Tubular Structures Corporation of America, a construction equipment business. His net worth in late 1958 and early 1959 was between $300,000 and $400,000, and the taxable net income disclosed on his joint returns for 1959 and 1960 was in excess of $136,000 and $113,000, respectively, computed without taking into account the depreciation and related items here in controversy. He was not engaged in the television or entertainment industry, nor does he appear to have had any expertise, training, or special knowledge or skills in such fields.

During the years in issue and until the time of the trial herein petitioner's accountant was a person named Temkin. In 1958 Temkin was associated in the practice of accountancy with the firm of Beidner, Temkin & Ziskin, C.P.A.'s. Sometime prior to November 20, 1958, Temkin introduced petitioner to George Beidner ("Beidner"), who was a partner in the same accounting firm. One of Beidner's clients, Robert B. Raisbeck ("Raisbeck"), *189 and, through him, Beidner and the accounting firm were interested in a venture involving the production of a television-adventure film series, entitled "Lee Green's Rendezvous With Adventure" (sometimes referred to as the "series" or "film series"). The venture was being carried out by two entities, a California partnership known as Sjambok Productions ("Sjambok"), and a Bahamian corporation, Lee Green Stock Footage, Ltd. ("Stock Footage"). Sjambok, which was formed July 14, 1958, was composed of Raisbeck and Leland W. Green ("Green"), each of whom had a 50 percent interest therein. Green was a cinema photographer and Raisbeck a T.V. producer. Green and Raisbeck each owned 45 percent of the outstanding stock in Stock Footage and the accounting firm owned the remaining 10 percent. Sjambok as well as Raisbeck was a client of the accounting firm.

In general Stock Footage photographed the episodes and sold the raw footage to Sjambok, which edited the film, provided soundtrack, titles, etc. The ultimate product was to be exploited through an agent who was to arrange for showings by various television stations, a process referred to as "syndication".

In the late 1950's there was a lucrative*190 market for travel-adventure film series among television stations in the western part of the United States. Such film series also had certain appeal on east coast and national television. Series of this nature that had previously been successfully syndicated to local television stations usually consisted of 39 separate episodes, which allowed for approximately nine months of first-run programming and 13 weeks of selected re-runs to fill out a year of weekly broadcasts of the series. Another feature of successful travel adventure series was their verisimilitude or authenticity. Most of the series did not employ actors but rather depicted "actual" people in the traveladventure context.

In 1957 or 1958 Raisbeck and Green, on the basis of two pilot films, were able to 281 obtain approximately $90,000 in contractual commitments from various stations in the western part of the United States for broadcast rights to 13 half-hour episodes of a travel-adventure series. These initial contractual agreements were negotiated by Tom Corradine ("Corradine"), a syndicated film distributor to television, on behalf of Raisbeck and Green.

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

Related

Griffiths v. Commissioner
308 U.S. 355 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Moore v. Commissioner
15 T.C. 906 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Yanow v. Commissioner
44 T.C. 444 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Furman v. Commissioner
45 T.C. 360 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Currier v. Commissioner
51 T.C. 488 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Michaelis v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1175 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1972 T.C. Memo. 70, 31 T.C.M. 279, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-commissioner-tax-1972.