Montgomery Engineering Company, a New Jersey Corporation, and William Hecht and May Belle Hecht v. United States

Third Circuit

Montgomery Engineering Company, a New Jersey Corporation, and William Hecht and May Belle Hecht v. United States

344 F.2d 996, 15 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 746, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5841

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 1965

Docket15075

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 344 F.2d 996 (Montgomery Engineering Company, a New Jersey Corporation, and William Hecht and May Belle Hecht v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Montgomery Engineering Company, a New Jersey Corporation, and William Hecht and May Belle Hecht v. United States, 344 F.2d 996, 15 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 746, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5841 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case involves the tax treatment of $50,000 paid out of the funds of a closely held corporation, controlled by its president and principal stockholder William Hecht, upon the' death of Oscar Nicholson, a corporate officer and director, to the widow of the decedent-who had been bitterly estranged from her husband for some nine years. The Commissioner disallowed a claimed corporate deduction of this payment as a business expense and, in addition, ruled that it was taxable to William Hecht as a constructive dividend. The corporation and Hecht, having paid the resultant assessments under protest, brought this suit for refunds.

The district court found that “the reason for the $50,000 payment to Mrs. Nicholson was that Mr. Hecht felt that he had a personal moral duty to right the wrong which he felt her husband had done to her and her children. His motivation was a purely personal one, that is he, as a human being who had known both husband and wife and their family for many years during which they helped his business grow and prosper, felt obligated to correct an injustice which had grown out of what he regarded as an unfortunate bitterness between the Nicholsons”. Our examination of the record satisfies us that this finding was not clearly erroneous.

“ Although payment was made by the corporation directly to Mrs. Nicholson pursuant to the vote of its directors, the quoted finding provided adequate support for the court’s conclusion that the questioned transaction was not an allowable corporate business expense but was a disbursement in the nature of a dividend paid in accordance with the wishes of William Hecht to accomplish a personal act of kindness motivated by his estimable sense of generosity and moral obligation.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case involves the tax treatment of $50,000 paid out of the funds of a closely held corporation, controlled by its president and principal stockholder William Hecht, upon the' death of Oscar Nicholson, a corporate officer and director, to the widow of the decedent-who had been bitterly estranged from her husband for some nine years. The Commissioner disallowed a claimed corporate deduction of this payment as a business expense and, in addition, ruled that it was taxable to William Hecht as a constructive dividend. The corporation and Hecht, having paid the resultant assessments under protest, brought this suit for refunds.

The district court found that “the reason for the $50,000 payment to Mrs. Nicholson was that Mr. Hecht felt that he had a personal moral duty to right the wrong which he felt her husband had done to her and her children. His motivation was a purely personal one, that is he, as a human being who had known both husband and wife and their family for many years during which they helped his business grow and prosper, felt obligated to correct an injustice which had grown out of what he regarded as an unfortunate bitterness between the Nicholsons”. Our examination of the record satisfies us that this finding was not clearly erroneous.

“ Although payment was made by the corporation directly to Mrs. Nicholson pursuant to the vote of its directors, the quoted finding provided adequate support for the court’s conclusion that the questioned transaction was not an allowable corporate business expense but was a disbursement in the nature of a dividend paid in accordance with the wishes of William Hecht to accomplish a personal act of kindness motivated by his estimable sense of generosity and moral obligation.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.2d 996, 15 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 746, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-engineering-company-a-new-jersey-corporation-and-william-hecht-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack