Nolde v. United States

64 Ct. Cl. 204, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 7098, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 224, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7284, 1927 WL 2916
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 7, 1927
DocketNo. F-91
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 Ct. Cl. 204 (Nolde 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
Nolde v. United States, 64 Ct. Cl. 204, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 7098, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 224, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7284, 1927 WL 2916 (cc 1927).

Opinion

GRAiiam, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff’s return of her income for the year 1919 showed a net income of $15,646.39, and a tax was paid on the basis of this return amounting to $641.47.

On and prior to February 21, 1919, the plaintiff was a holder of stock in the Nolde & Horst Company. On that date the board of directors of said company declared a stock dividend of 900% to be distributed pro rata among the "stockholders, the total value of the shares so distributed being $2,250,000. The plaintiff received 4,950 shares, of the par value of $100 each, as her pro rata share of this distribution.

On February 28, 1919, seven days after the declaration of the stock dividend, the board of directors of said company declared a dividend of 20% on the outstanding capital stock as increased, amounting to $500,000, payable in cash on March 6, 1919, to the stockholders of record on that date. This cash dividend was- paid on March 6, 1919, and the plaintiff received as a dividend upon her holdings of stock of said corporation the sum of $110,000. The resolution of the board declaring this dividend stated that it was payable out of the surplus representing undistributed profits of the years prior to March 1, 1913.

On March 1, 1913, said company had on hand undistributed earnings or profits amounting to $1,100,000. Its earnings for the years 1913, 1914, and 1915 were currently distributed. For the subslequent years the undistributed earnings were as follows:

Undistributed earnings or profits of 1916_ $100,000.00
Undistributed earnings or profits of 1917- 648,489.97
Undistributed earnings or profits of 1918- 659, 355. 30
Undistributed earnings or profits of January and February, 1919_ 250,000.00
Accumulated undistributed earnings or profits on March 3, 1919, earned after March 1, 1913_ 1, 652, 845.27

[208]*208The Commissioner of Internal Revenue on January 22, 1923, notified the plaintiff of an additional assessment of income tax for 1919, amounting to $31,339.53, based upon the receipt by plaintiff of the cash dividend declared and paid by the Nolde & Horst Company on March 6, 1919. The plaintiff appealed to the Comm,ittee on Appeals and Review, which sustained the action of the commissioner, and thereupon plaintiff filed a claim for refund, and this being denied suit was brought in this court March 2, 1926.

I In making the additional assessment the commisS|ioner held that the 900% stock dividend was not a distribution of undivided earnings or profits and that there remained undis¡'tributed a sufficient amount of earnings or profits accumulated subsequent to February 28,- 1913, to pay in full the cash dividend distributed March 6, 1919.

The sole question presented, therefore, is whether the commissioner, under the facts of this case, acted legally in assessing a tax upon the basis of the cash dividend received. The applicable statutes are sec. 31,1 (a) and (b) of the revenue act of 1917, 40 Stat. 300, 338, and sec. 201,2 (a) to (e), inc., of the revenue act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, 1059.

[209]*209Prior to the decision on March 8, 1920, in the case of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, the commissioner had held that stock dividends were taxable as income.

As stated, the company had on hand on March 1, 1913, earnings or profits accumulated prior to February 28, 1913, amounting to $1,100,000, and earnings or profits on hand March 3, 1919, accumulated after March 1, 1913, amounted to $1,652,845.27, making a total of $2,752,845.27 of accumulated and undistributed earnings or profits prior to the declaration of the dividends. As the dividends taken together amounted to $2,750,000, it will be seen that there were enough earnings and profits in the treasury of the company to cover both dividends.

[210]*210The court in the Eisner case held that a stock dividend is not income; that a stock dividend is merely a change in the form of the holding of the stockholder, evidenced by certain certificates, due to the action of the corporation in taking a portion of its earnings and profits, in which the stockholder, of course, had an interest, and converting it into capital, and that it was not such a distribution of profits within the meaning of the statute as to constitute it taxable income. The case also distinguished between the corporation as a separate entity and the stockholder, and held that the stockholder in receiving the stock dividend took nothing out of the company’s assets for his own-use and benefit, while his investment with any additions remained the property of the corporation subject to business risks, the payment of its debts, etc. It made no change in the ownership of the assets of the corporation. The declaration of the cash dividend segregated certain of the company’s profits as property of the stockholder. It was paid to the stockholder and was therefore income to him, and under the act of 1918 cash dividends from profits accumulated after February 28, 1918, were taxable as income.

As recited above, the directors first declared the stock dividend to be paid out of the earnings and profits accumulated since February 28, 1913, and a week later declared the cash dividend payable out of earnings and profits accumulated prior to February 28, 1913. It was decided in the case of Edwards v. Douglas, 269 U. S. 204, that the directors could not control by their action what year’s earnings the dividends were to be paid from; that the statute regulated this, and provided that the tax should be paid from the “ available profits or earnings of the most recent year or years,” and that this intention was to be gathered from the phrase “ most recently accumulated ” in connection with the words “ undivided profits or surplus.”

It will be seen from the facts stated that there were ample undistributed earnings and profits at the time the cash dividend was declared, from the years following February 28, 1913, out of which the cash dividend could have been paid. The dividend amounted to $500,000, and the earnings and profits accumulated from the date mentioned [211]*211to the time of the declaration of the dividend amounted to $1,652,845.27.

The petition should be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Moss, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Ghief Justice, concur. Hat, Judge, absent.

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

Related

Patty v. Helvering
98 F.2d 717 (Second Circuit, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ct. Cl. 204, 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 7098, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 224, 1927 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7284, 1927 WL 2916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolde-v-united-states-cc-1927.