N. Shure Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

N. Shure Co. v. Commissioner

4 B.T.A. 1181, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2046

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 1926

DocketDocket No. 3655.

StatusPublished

This text of 4 B.T.A. 1181 (N. Shure Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

N. Shure Co. v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 1181, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2046 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[1184]*1184OPINION.

Love :

The Commissioner contends that the provisions of the contract in question for the payment of 6 per cent per annum on the unpaid balance due on the stock was in effect a part of the purchase price or a guaranteed dividend and not interest. Clearly, the seller endorsed the stock and passed it out of his possession and control to the trustee. He retained only the right to the agreed money payments, at stipulated times, and the right to 6 per cent per annum for the unpaid balances. In case of default he had the right of recovery of the unpaid stock or specific performance of the contract. There clearly existed the simple relationship of debtor and creditor in which the total amount of the indebtedness, the time due, and the consideration for the deferred payments were fixed. To hold that the consideration for the unpaid balances constituted guarantee dividends or part of the consideration for the stock itself, in our opinion, would be a forced and unnatural construction of the plain meaning of the contract.

Judgment for the petitioner. Order of re-determination will he entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

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

[1184]*1184OPINION.

Love :

The Commissioner contends that the provisions of the contract in question for the payment of 6 per cent per annum on the unpaid balance due on the stock was in effect a part of the purchase price or a guaranteed dividend and not interest. Clearly, the seller endorsed the stock and passed it out of his possession and control to the trustee. He retained only the right to the agreed money payments, at stipulated times, and the right to 6 per cent per annum for the unpaid balances. In case of default he had the right of recovery of the unpaid stock or specific performance of the contract. There clearly existed the simple relationship of debtor and creditor in which the total amount of the indebtedness, the time due, and the consideration for the deferred payments were fixed. To hold that the consideration for the unpaid balances constituted guarantee dividends or part of the consideration for the stock itself, in our opinion, would be a forced and unnatural construction of the plain meaning of the contract.

Judgment for the petitioner. Order of re-determination will he entered on 15 days’ notice, under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 B.T.A. 1181, 1926 BTA LEXIS 2046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-shure-co-v-commissioner-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack