National Pneumatic Co. v. United States

176 Ct. Cl. 660, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5152, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 16, 1966 WL 14867
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 15, 1966
DocketNo. 468-61
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 Ct. Cl. 660 (National Pneumatic Co. 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
National Pneumatic Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 660, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5152, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 16, 1966 WL 14867 (cc 1966).

Opinion

Durfee, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit for refund of $731,500.46 in interest assessed and collected from plaintiffs with respect to the Federal income and excess profits tax liabilities of National Pneumatic Company (hereinafter “taxpayer”) for the years 1944 and 1945. The taxpayer was a corporation organized under the laws of West Virginia. Its principal office was in New York City. It was duly dissolved in 1949, and all of its assets, subject to its liabilities, were distributed to its stockholders in redemption and cancellation of their stock certificates and in liquidation of the corporation.

[662]*662Charles Frost was one of the principal stockholders of taxpayer, and as such, he was one of the principal transferees of its assets upon its dissolution. On August 24, 1949, all of the stockholders of taxpayer appointed Charles Frost as their agent to receive, hold, sell, or dispose of the property so distributed by taxpayer. He was to satisfy the debts of the taxpayer, any mortgages or liens against its property, and to hold and distribute to the stockholders what was left over.

Pursuant to an audit of the returns of the taxpayer covering the 2 years here involved (1944 and 1945), among others, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on May 26, 1954, forwarded to the taxpayer and to each of its transferees statutory notices of deficiency. The statutory notice showed unpaid income and excess profits taxes in the sum of $1,348,-585.21. Exhibit B attached to the statutory notice computed the book value of assets distributed over liabilities assumed by the transferees to be $3,317,459.43. Exhibit B also contained a statement showing transferee liabilities based on a pro rata distribution of the assets. Taxpayer and its transferees did not agree to the assessments proposed in the statutory notices. However, while the conflict of opinion between this court’s decision in Olympic Radio and Television, Inc. v. United States, 124 Ct. Cl. 33, 108 F. Supp. 109 (1952), red’d 349 U.S. 232 (1955) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Lewyt Corp. v. Commissioner, 215 F. 2d 518 (1954) aff’d in part and rev'd in part, 349 U.S. 237 (1955), remained unresolved, settlement could not be effected despite conferences between the parties.

On August 23,1954, taxpayer and all the transferees filed petitions in the Tax Court of the United States for the years covered by the statutory notices. The Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the matters at issue in 1945, because an overassessment was proposed for that year. On May 23, 1955, the Supreme Court resolved the Olympic Radio-Lewyt cases conflict by upholding the Second Circuit in Lewyt. On August 4, 1955, counsel for taxpayer and the transferees moved the Tax Court to amend all the petitions filed by them to conform to the decisions of the Supreme Court which motions were granted by the Tax Court. Upon [663]*663resolution by the Supreme Court of the conflict of opinion aforementioned, conferences on the administrative level were renewed and agreements settling the issues were reached. Thereupon, in the Tax Court proceedings, stipulations embodying these agreements and determining the tax liabilities of each of the transferees of the taxpayer were executed on August 21, 1957, by the respective counsels for all parties. The stipulations provided for back tax payment in the sum of $790,683.12 pins statutory interest thereon. The Tax Court, in conformity with the aforementioned stipulations submitted to it, entered its orders determining the tax liabilities due from each of the transferees plus statutory interest thereon. These orders were severally dated September 27,1957, October 8,1957, and October 9, 1957.

Thereafter, notices and demands for payment were sent to each of the transferees. The demand included, for the 2 years here involved, delinquency interest of $275,248.77 as well as assessed interest on liabilities, some of which, according to plaintiffs, had been eliminated by the aforesaid stipulations and the orders of the Tax Court.1 The assessed interest totaled $456,251.69. The total interest due (both assessed and delinquency) was $731,500.46 — the amount now sought in refund. The largess of the interest is due to the fact that it was computed from the dates payment was originally due from the transferor under 26' U.S.C. §§ 292 (a) and 294 (b) (1952 ed.). The total amount due was thereafter paid and suit was brought for refund of the interest.

It is plaintiffs’ position that the interest computations were erroneous in that defendant failed to abide by the decisions of the Tax Court of the United States, which decisions determined the tax liabilities of the transferees pursuant to stipulations by the parties. The Tax Court decisions determined the transferees’ liabilities as to income and excess profits .taxes “plus statutory interest thereon,” and plaintiffs allege that defendant illegally went beyond the quoted phrase by adding so-called delinquency interest to the amounts due. Further, plaintiffs allege that defendant computed interest on certain original tax liabilities which [664]*664were later reduced or expunged by the Tax Court, and that this action was improper as to the transferees under New York state law.1

The correctness of plaintiffs’ position hinges on the determination of the question of whether assumed liabilities exceeded assets received or vice versa. Both parties agree that under two Tax Court decisions, Lowy v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 393 (1960), and Stein v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 945 (1962), following Patterson v. Sims, 281 F. 2d 577 (5th Cir. 1960), interest that begins to run against transferees liable for taxes of a transferor under § 311 of the 1939 Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 311 (1952 ed.),2 is completely determined by Federal law except when liabilities assumed exceed assets received. When liabilities exceed assets, state law governs the date of the assessment of interest. The reason for this rule is set out in Stein v. Commissioner, supra, at p. 961:

* * * In cases where the transferred assets exceed the total liability of the transferor, the interest being-charged is upon the deficiency, and is therefore a right created by the Internal Revenue Code. However, where, as here, the transferred assets are insufficient to pay the transferor’s total liability, interest is not assessed against the deficiencies because the transferee’s liability for such deficiencies is limited to the amount actually transferred to him. Interest may be charged against the transferee only for the use of the transferred assets, and since this involves the extent of transferee liability, it is determined by State law. * * *

In the present case, defendant — believing assets exceeded liabilities assumed, issued notices and demands for payments of the amount stipulated in the Tax Court orders plus statutory interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 292(a)

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

Related

Schussel v. Werfel
758 F.3d 82 (First Circuit, 2014)
Rubenstein v. Comm'r
2010 T.C. Memo. 274 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 Ct. Cl. 660, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5152, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 16, 1966 WL 14867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-pneumatic-co-v-united-states-cc-1966.