Northup v. United States

137 F. Supp. 268, 48 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1158, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedNovember 16, 1955
DocketCiv. Nos. 4614, 4615, 4903
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 F. Supp. 268 (Northup v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northup v. United States, 137 F. Supp. 268, 48 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1158, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299 (D. Conn. 1955).

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Judge.

In these three cases money received by the taxpayers on the redemption of shares of second preferred stock in I. Newman & Sons Inc. and in the case of Northup on sale of such preferred stock to his daughter, Jean N. Miles, and to a trust of which she was the beneficiary were treated in the taxpayers’ returns as capital gains. The Commissioner held that the full amount received on redemption and sale of the shares should be treated as dividend income under Section 115(g) I.R.C. (1939), 26 U.S.C.A. § 115(g). Deficiencies were assessed, paid, claims for refund duly filed and this action timely begun.

No hard and fast rule for determining when payments received by shareholders on the retirement of preferred stock must be treated as a dividend for income tax purposes can be gathered from the cases. Elements which must be weighed are (1) whether the payments, are pro rata with corporate ownership, Keefe v. Cote, 1 Cir., 213 F.2d 651, — here they are not, which favors the taxpayers’ position, (2) whether the stock was issued with the purpose of tax avoidance by later redemption— here the issue was before the law provided any tax incentive for such issue and redemption, negativing any such motive, (3) whether the corporation is closely held — here the ownership is in a fairly small group, but not concentrated in one family, (4) whether the stock retirement coincided with a contraction of corporate business, Imler v. C. I. R., 11 T.C. 836,—not present here, which favors the government’s position, (5) whether all taxpayer’s shares were redeemed, Zenz v. Quinlivan, 6 Cir., 213 F.2d 914, ending all his interest in the corporation — here common stock interests, though disproportionate, still existed, (6) whether the payments are made from current earnings or surplus— here from current earnings, which favors the government’s position, (7) whether there is a compelling business reason for the retirement. This last is perhaps the most weighty element when the other elements are in fairly even balance. In the case at bar there were business reasons for the retirement, the greater flexibility in future financing, if necessary, when only one class of stock exists, the desirability of removing a restriction on payments of dividends on the common, and the desirability of avoiding any question of added tax by reason of excessive retention of earnings. Yet none of these reasons had created any immediate need or substantial pressure. On balance, these business pressures were too light in this case to outweigh the fact of transmission of current earnings to some of the shareholders by means of stock retirement. Taxwise, it is correctly to be considered essentially equivalent to the distribution of a taxable dividend to those shareholders. Tax advantage to the shareholders need not be pro rata to common shareholdings, particularly in closely held corporations, for it to characterize a distribution of current earnings by means of stock retirement as essentially equivalent to a dividend for tax purposes.

It is otherwise with the payments received by the taxpayer on sales to his daughter and her trust. The sales were bona fide and the shares were not paid off in the year of the sales. Even if the taxpayer knew that there was a strong probability that the shares would be retired in the next year, and made the sales when he did for the purpose of legal tax avoidance, the payments to him did not thereby become dividends paid out by the corporation, cf. Beard v. Commissioner, 4 T.C. 756; Hobby, 2 T.C. 980.

[271]*271Form of judgment in accordance with this opinion may be submitted on notice.

Finding of Facts

1. The plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, is an individual residing at Moose Hill Road, Guilford, Connecticut, and is a resident of the District of Connecticut.

2. The defendant, James J. Graham, is District Director of Internal Revenue at Hartford, Connecticut, and a resident of the District of Connecticut.

3. The plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, paid Federal income tax and interest thereon for the year 1945 as follows:

Tax Interest

Prior to March 15, 1946 $26,106.31

November 6, 1952 16,450.21 $6,503.92

January 15, 1953 and February 16,1953 53.40

Totals $42,556.52 $6,557.32

The payment of $53.40 interest was made to defendant, James J. Graham, but the other payments were made to his predecessors in office.

4. On or about November 20,1952 the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, duly filed a timely claim for refund of $22,954.13, income tax and interest paid thereon for the year 1945. A true copy of said claim for refund is attached to the stipulation of facts filed herein and marked Exhibit A. On or about March 11, 1953 the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, filed an amended claim for refund of income tax and interest paid thereon for the year-1945 in the amount of $23,007.53. A true copy of said amended cláim for refund is attached to the stipulation of facts filed herein and marked Exhibit B.

5. The plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, paid Federal income tax and interest thereon for the year 1946 as follows:

Prior to April 2, 1947 $31,108.95

November 6, 1952 13,860.41 $4,648.37

January 15, 1953 and February 16,1953 44.99

Totals $44,969.36 $4,693.36

The payment of $44.99 interest was made to defendant, James J. Graham, but the other payments were made to his predecessors in office.

6. On or about November 20, 1952, the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, duly filed a timely claim for refund of $18,-■508.78 income tax and interest paid thereon for the year 1946. A true copy of said claim for refund is attached to the stipulation of facts filed herein and marked Exhibit C. On or about March 11, 1953, the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, filed an amended claim for refund of income tax and interest paid thereon for the calendar year 1946 in the amount of $18,553.77. A true copy of said amended claim for refund is attached to the stipulation of facts filed herein and marked Exhibit D.

7. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has made no decision with respect to the claims for refund of 1945 and 1946 income tax and interest paid thereon filed by the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup. More than six months had elapsed after the filing of said claims for refund for 1945 and 1946 when the action brought by Daniel W. Northup was started.

[272]*2728. On or , about February 28, 1945 the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, transferred to I. Newman & Sons, Inc., a corporation, 295 shares of preferred stock of that corporation for $15,487.50. Said 295 shares of preferred stock were capital assets and had been held by the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, for more than six months prior to the transfer.

9. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue held that the $15,487.50 which the plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, received from I. Newman & Sons, Inc. for said 295 shares of preferred stock was dividend income. The plaintiff, Daniel W. Northup, claims that said transfer resulted in a long term capital gain of $6,922.98.

10. On April 17, 1945, the plaintiff, Daniel W-. Northup, sold 180 shares of preferred stock of I. Newman & Sons, Inc. for $9,000. 160 shares were sold to Mrs. Jean N. Miles, who is the daughter of Daniel W. Northup, and 20 shares were sold to a trust of which said Mrs. Jean N.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 F. Supp. 268, 48 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1158, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northup-v-united-states-ctd-1955.