New Capital Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

New Capital Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

261 F.2d 437

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1958

Docket13438

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 261 F.2d 437 (New Capital Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Capital Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 261 F.2d 437 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause came for hearing on petition of the corporate taxpayer, New Capital Hotel, Inc., for review of the decision of the Tax Court of the United States holding a deficiency in income tax for the year 1949 in the amount of $11,724.-50.

The decision of the tax court rested on the proposition that the advance payment of $30,000, received by the taxpayer in 1949 to apply as rental for the last year of a lease [for the year 1959], was taxable income in 1949. The taxpayer had unrestricted use of the advance rental payment and invested it in interest-bearing bonds, not holding it in trust or in escrow in any fashion whatsoever.

The tax court declined to permit the taxpayer to deduct in 1949 its estimated expenses to be incurred in 1959 in connection with the earning of the rental. This was in conformity with the principle of our opinion in Ohmer Register Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 682, 686.

In the instant case, there was no requirement of the taxpayer that it hold the advance rental in trust, or as a separate fund, pursuant to the requirement of our decision in Gilken Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 141. There, we held that, where money was received by the taxpayer as advance rental, as security for performance, and as part payment of the purchase price in the event the lessee should exercise its option to buy; and where the advance was paid without any restriction on the taxpayer as to the use of the money, or without a requirement to hold the money in trust or to set it apart as a separate fund, the money so received by the taxpayer constituted taxable income, when received. Cf. Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 353 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 707, 1 L.Ed.2d 746, affirming the decision of this court, reported in 6 Cir., 230 F.2d 585.

The decision of the tax court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause came for hearing on petition of the corporate taxpayer, New Capital Hotel, Inc., for review of the decision of the Tax Court of the United States holding a deficiency in income tax for the year 1949 in the amount of $11,724.-50.

The decision of the tax court rested on the proposition that the advance payment of $30,000, received by the taxpayer in 1949 to apply as rental for the last year of a lease [for the year 1959], was taxable income in 1949. The taxpayer had unrestricted use of the advance rental payment and invested it in interest-bearing bonds, not holding it in trust or in escrow in any fashion whatsoever.

The tax court declined to permit the taxpayer to deduct in 1949 its estimated expenses to be incurred in 1959 in connection with the earning of the rental. This was in conformity with the principle of our opinion in Ohmer Register Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 682, 686.

In the instant case, there was no requirement of the taxpayer that it hold the advance rental in trust, or as a separate fund, pursuant to the requirement of our decision in Gilken Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 141. There, we held that, where money was received by the taxpayer as advance rental, as security for performance, and as part payment of the purchase price in the event the lessee should exercise its option to buy; and where the advance was paid without any restriction on the taxpayer as to the use of the money, or without a requirement to hold the money in trust or to set it apart as a separate fund, the money so received by the taxpayer constituted taxable income, when received. Cf. Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 353 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 707, 1 L.Ed.2d 746, affirming the decision of this court, reported in 6 Cir., 230 F.2d 585.

The decision of the tax court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 F.2d 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-capital-hotel-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack