Mustard v. United States

155 F. Supp. 325, 140 Ct. Cl. 205, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 554, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 32
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 9, 1957
Docket341-52
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 155 F. Supp. 325 (Mustard 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
Mustard v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 325, 140 Ct. Cl. 205, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 554, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 32 (cc 1957).

Opinion

*327 PER CURIAM.

This case was referred by the court, pursuant to Rule 45(c), 28 U.S.C.A., to Mastín G. White, a commissioner of the court, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in a report filed August 8, 1957. When more than 15 days elapsed after the filing of this report-and neither party gave notice in writing of an intention to except to the commissioner’s findings or recommendations, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment in accordance with the recommendations of the commissioner. Since the court agrees with the recommendations and findings of the commissioner, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis of its judgment in this case. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover, together with interest as provided by law, and judgment is entered to that effect. The amount of recovery will be determined pursuant to Rule 38(c).

It is so ordered.

The opinion of the commissioner follows:

This action was originally instituted by Andrew C. Hebble, of Battle Creek, Michigan, to recover amounts paid by him to the defendant as income tax deficiencies and interest for the years 1943 and 1944. Mr. Hebble later died and John A. Mustard, the duly appointed executor of his estate, was substituted as the party plaintiff.

The legal question involved in the case is whether Mr. Hebble was entitled, in computing his income taxes for the years 1943 and 1944, to treat as a charitable contribution in each of those years an assignment to the Battle Creek Kiwanis Club of a one-tenth interest in a certain promissory note having a face value of $29,250.

The statutory provision involved in this litigation is Section 23 (o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(o). In 1943, the section provided in pertinent part as follows:

“§ 23. Deductions From Gross Income.
“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: ******
“(o) Charitable and other contributions. In the case of an individual, contributions or gifts payment of which is made within the taxable year to or for the use of: ******
“(2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation, created or organized in the United States or in any possession thereof or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory or of any possession of the United States, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation;
******
to an amount which in all the above cases combined does not exceed 15 per centum of the taxpayer’s net income as computed without the benefit of this subsection or of subsection (x). Such contributions or gifts shall be allowable as deductions only if verified under rules and regulations prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary.” 1

As applicable to the year 1944, the language quoted above was revised slightly by striking out “net income as computed without the benefit of this subsection or *328 of subsection (x)” and inserting in lieu thereof “adjusted gross income”. 2

Since the assignment to the Kiwanis Club by Mr. Hebble of interests in the $29,250 promissory note was incidental to the establishment by Mr. Hebble of a trust known as The Esther H. Hebble Memorial Trust, it is necessary to outline in some detail the facts pertaining to that trust.

For many years prior to 1943, Mr. Hebble was a successful undertaker in Battle Creek. As an adjunct to that business, he had organized a cemetery corporation known as the Battle Creek Memorial Park Association. As of September 17,1943 — a date that will be referred to frequently in this opinion — -Mr. Hebble was the president of the corporation, and he ov/ned 300 shares of stock in the corporation out of a total capitalization of 400 shares.

The Battle Creek Memorial Park Association was organized for the purpose of owning and operating a cemetery. The cemetery, known as the Memorial Park Cemetery, is located on the outskirts of Battle Creek. By September 17, 1943, the cemetery was a valuable property. It was beautifully landscaped and maintained, and it was well established as a business enterprise.

Mr. Hebble had been an active member of the Battle Creek Kiwanis Club for many years prior to 1943. The club, although not primarily a charitable organization, carried on an extensive social welfare program among the children and young people of Battle Creek and vicinity. Mr. Hebble, who did not have any children of his own, was very much interested in these social welfare activities of the Kiwanis Club for the benefit of children and young people. Over a period of years, he made statements indicating that, because he regarded the Kiwanis Club as a good handler of money, he proposed to give money to the club for use in behalf of boys and girls.

In 1943, after the death of his wife, Esther H. Hebble, to whom he had been very devoted, Mr. Hebble became more specific in statements to the effect that he wanted to do something through the Kiwanis Club for children. Mr. Hebble was then about 80 years old.

Mr. Hebble knew that his long-time friend, Eugene H. McKay, also of Battle Creek and also a member of the Kiwanis Club, had established a small trust fund with the Kiwanis Club to help college students. Sometime in 1943, Mr. Hebble approached Mr. McKay and stated that he wanted to have something similar, except that he wanted to benefit children who were younger than college students. Mr. Hebble informed Mr. McKay that, as a memorial to his wife, he would like to give all his stock in the Battle Creek Memorial Park Association to the Kiwanis Club, and make a loan to the club so that it could purchase the remaining shares of stock in the cemetery corporation owned by other persons. Mr. Hebble indicated that it was his purpose that the profits from the operation of the cemetery should be used by the Kiwanis Club exclusively for the benefit of underprivileged children, and for character-building programs among children generally, in the Battle Creek area, including boys and girls of high school age. Mr. Hebble asked Mr. McKay to confer with officers and directors of the Kiwanis Club and ascertain whether they would be receptive to such a proposal. Mr. McKay agreed to do so.

Mr. McKay first presented Mr. Hebble’s proposal orally to the president and secretary of the Battle Creek Kiwanis Club; and thereafter he orally presented the proposal to the board of directors of the club.

After Mr. McKay’s presentation, the president of the Kiwanis Club had a conference with Mr. Hebble. Mr. Hebble again outlined his proposal in language similar to that previously used by him in the discussion with Mr. McKay. Mr.

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

Related

Brauer v. Commissioner
74 T.C. 1134 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Swank v. United States
602 F.2d 348 (Court of Claims, 1979)
Glazer Steel Corporation v. The United States
388 F.2d 990 (Court of Claims, 1967)
Johnson v. United States
280 F. Supp. 412 (N.D. New York, 1967)
Fogg v. United States
180 Ct. Cl. 605 (Court of Claims, 1967)
Story v. Commissioner
38 T.C. 936 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. José Ferrer
304 F.2d 125 (Second Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F. Supp. 325, 140 Ct. Cl. 205, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 554, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mustard-v-united-states-cc-1957.