Moore v. Commissioner

5 T.C.M. 133, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 255
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 28, 1946
DocketDocket Nos. 4066, 4079.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 5 T.C.M. 133 (Moore 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
Moore v. Commissioner, 5 T.C.M. 133, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 255 (tax 1946).

Opinion

Leona Kurth Moore v. Commissioner. Ethel Kurth Haebler v. Commissioner.
Moore v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 4066, 4079.
United States Tax Court
1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 255; 5 T.C.M. (CCH) 133; T.C.M. (RIA) 46056;
February 28, 1946
Frederic Sammond, Esq. and T. C. Bolliger, Esq., 735 N. Water St., Milwaukee 2, Wis., for the petitioners. Harold H. Hart, Esq., for the respondent.

KERN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

These two proceedings which were consolidated for hearing and opinion involve*256 deficiencies in petitioners' income tax liabilities for the calendar year 1939. The two cases are identical in issues and facts.

The respondent determined a deficiency of $70,951.57 against petitioner Leona Kurth Moore and $66,526.91 against petitioner Edith Kurth Haebler. The difference in the amounts of deficiency results solely from differences in undisputed taxable income of each petitioner, prior to adjustment.

The question presented for decision is whether the reacquisition by a certain corporation in 1939 of all of its outstanding preferred stock consisting of 2,500 shares held by the petitioners, constituted a distribution in partial liquidation so that petitioners are taxable on 100 percent of their gain therefrom.

The facts were presented to the court by stipulation, documentary evidence attached thereto, and oral testimony. The facts stipulated are found as stipulated.

Findings of Fact

The petitioners are individuals residing in Milwaukee, Wis., and filed their respective income tax returns for the calendar year 1939 with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Wis.

Each petitioner on December 27, 1939, owned 1,250 shares*257 of the 5 percent cumulative preferred stock of a par value of $170 per share of the Kurth Malting Company (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), a Wisconsin corporation, which she had held for more than twenty-four months prior thereto. The articles of organization of the company and the certificates evidencing this preferred stock contained no provision for its redemption by the corporation.

At December 27, 1939, and for some time prior thereto, the company had outstanding 14,140 shares of common stock, owned as follows:

Leona Kurth Moore (petitioner)4,420.60
Ethel Kurth Haebler (petitioner)4,371.85
Herbert C. Kurth (brother of peti-
tioners)3,211.60
Estate of Amanda Kurth (Amanda was
mother of petitioners)829.45
Chris Kurth, Jr. (cousin of peti-
tioners)48.75
Wm. T. Haebler (husband of peti-
tioner. Mrs. Haebler)48.75
First Wisconsin Trust Co., Trustee
(trustee under an agreement with
Herbert C. Kurth as settlor for his
minor children)1,209.00
14,140.00

The entire outstanding preferred stock of the company as of December 18, 1939, which was held by the petitioners, was represented by the following certificates:

CertificatesShares
Ethel Kurth Haebler#3750
Ethel Kurth Haebler4500
Leona Kurth Moore5500
Leona Kurth Moore6250
Leona Kurth Moore7500
2,500

*258 In December 1939, a representative of petitioners approached Bingham, Sheldon & Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Bingham"), a licensed security dealer in Milwaukee, in which petitioners had no interest, and offered to sell Bingham the preferred stock owned by the petitioners. On December 18, 1939, a special meeting of the Board of Directors1 of the company was held. The president of the company reported at this meeting that discussion had been had from time to time as to the propriety of acquiring the outstanding preferred stock and that because of the unwillingness of the petitioners to sell the stock to the company, the company had discussed with Bingham the possibility that Bingham buy the stock from the petitioners under an agreement to sell the stock to the company. 2 A tentative contract with Bingham was presented to the meeting. The Board approved the tentative agreement with Bingham and authorized and directed the company's officers to take all steps necessary to the acquisition of the stock from Bingham.

*259

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

Related

Commissioner v. Court Holding Co.
324 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Hobby v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 980 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Jones v. Commissioner
4 T.C. 854 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 T.C.M. 133, 1946 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-commissioner-tax-1946.