Newman Machine Co. v. Commissioner

26 T.C. 1030, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 93
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 13, 1956
DocketDocket Nos. 44379, 52020
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 T.C. 1030 (Newman Machine Co. 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
Newman Machine Co. v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 1030, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 93 (tax 1956).

Opinion

OPINION.

TURNER, Judge:

Under section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939,1 a surtax is imposed upon the net income of a corporation, if such corporation “is formed or availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the surtax upon its shareholders * * * through the medium of permitting earnings or profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed.” And by subsection (c) thereof, it is provided that the “fact that the earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be determinative of the purpose to avoid surtax upon shareholders.”

The respondent has determined such surtax deficiencies against petitioner for the years herein, on the ground that it was availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the surtax upon its shareholders, through the medium of permitting its earnings and profits to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of its business, and the case has been submitted and argued by the parties on that premise.

The evidentiary facts as shown of record have been found .in considerable detail, and, in our opinion, no discussion or elaboration thereof is needed to justify the ultimate finding that petitioner did not accumulate its earnings or profits beyond the reasonable needs of its business, or to sustain the conclusion that petitioner was not availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the surtax upon its shareholders, within the meaning of section 102. It is, of course, patent that petitioner was not formed for that purpose, and there has been no claim or determination that it was.

The respondent’s determination of section 102 liability is accordingly rejected. See and compare Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U. S. 282; Helvering v. Chicago Stock Yards Co., 318 U. S. 693; Crawford County Printing & Publishing Co., 17 T. C. 1404; J. L. Goodman Furniture Co., 11 T. C. 530; L. R. Teeple Co., 47 B. T. A. 270; Cecil B. De Mille, 31 B. T. A. 1161, affd. 90 F. 2d 12, certiorari denied 302 U. S. 713; and William G. De Mille Productions, Inc., 30 B. T. A. 826.

Decision will be entered wader Rule 50.

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

Related

Newman Machine Co. v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 1030 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 T.C. 1030, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-machine-co-v-commissioner-tax-1956.