Philadelphia-Baltimore Stock Exchange v. Commissioner

19 T.C. 355, 1952 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 31
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1952
DocketDocket No. 32231
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 19 T.C. 355 (Philadelphia-Baltimore Stock Exchange 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
Philadelphia-Baltimore Stock Exchange v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 355, 1952 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 31 (tax 1952).

Opinion

OPINION.

LeMire, Judge:

The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax and declared value excess-profits tax for the year 1944 in the respective amounts of $4,531.51 and $298.85, as a result of disallowing a deduction of $34,140, claimed by petitioner as payments from its Gratuity Fund to beneficiaries of deceased members, and a deduction of the sum of $900 paid to the widow of a former employee. Petitioner contends, in the alternative, that it is entitled to a deduction on account of payments made from the Gratuity Fund to the extent it reported, in a single return, the income from investments of the Gratuity Fund. All the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. They may be summarized as follows:

Petitioner is an unincorporated association organized about 1790 under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania for the purpose of providing an auction market for trading in securities. Its return for the period involved was filed with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of Pennsylvania. Petitioner operates as a security exchange duly registered with the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission. It has currently 200 members.

The operation of the Exchange is provided for, substantially, by dues, income from investments, listing fees, and service charges, in like manner generally as the various regional National Securities Exchanges.

The petitioner in 1875 established and has since maintained a fund known and described as a Gratuity Fund. Since its inception the Gratuity Fund has been held and managed by trustees. In 1944 the trustees consisted of the president, vice president, and three other members of petitioner appointed by its board of governors.

The fund, however arising, must be kept separate and distinct from all other funds of the petitioner and it can be used solely for the payment of gratuities in accordance with the constitutional provisions relating thereto. The investment of unexpended funds is within the discretion of the trustees. Since its establishment the sources of revenue from the fund have been transfers of funds from the petitioner pursuant to resolutions of the board of governors between April 7, 1881, and May 1, 1918, amounting to $136,700, fees payable to the fund by members upon their admission to membership in the Exchange, assessments made upon members as contributions upon the death of a member, annual dues, and income from invested funds.

All funds transferred by resolution of the board of governors, fees, assessments, and income from the Gratuity Fund investments, are paid to the trustees and held by them for the purpose of the fund.

The funds of the Exchange and of the trustees of the Gratuity Fund are separately held and accounted for in separate books and records. Receipts of income from investments of the Gratuity Fund are payable to the trustees and deposited in the account of the trustees. Assessments collected from the members upon the death of a member are paid over to the trustees of the Gratuity Fund.

Upon the death of a full member of petitioner and within 30 days thereof the trustees were required, under the constitutional provisions operative in the taxable year 1944, to pay out of the Gratuity Fund certain benefits to the widow of such deceased member, or to his child or children, or the issue of deceased children, or among the widow and child or children and issue of deceased children, or failing such widow, or child or issue of deceased child or children, to his next of kin, as defined in the intestate laws of the State of Pennslyvania in force at the time of such member’s death, as they in their discretion may determine.

Under the constitutional provisions operative in the year 1944, the gratuities payable varied from $7,500 upon the death of a member admitted to membership on or before May 1, 1918, to $1,000 upon the death of a member admitted to membership after May 1, 1944, who was 70 or more years of age at the time of his admission to membership. On December 31, 1944, there were 37 members upon whose death a gratuity of $7,500 was payable. The assessment upon members upon the death of a member under the constitution of June 17, 1876, was $10; on September 27,1886, it was increased to $15; and on May 5, 1906, it was increased to $20. On March 15, 1944, the constitution was amended to provide that the assessment of $20 shall be waived whenever the assets of the Gratuity Fund are sufficient to pay any gratuity payable on the death of a member without reducing such assets below the sum of $300,000.

The assets of the Gratuity Fund as of January 1,1944, and December 31,1944, were as follows:

[[Image here]]

The net loss of assets during the year 1944 on the basis of cost was $15,713.66. The capital gain on sales of securities was $4,866.55.

The disbursements from the Gratuity Fund during the year 1944 were as follows:

Payment oí gratuities_$37,500.00
Other expenses_ 384.40
37,884.40
Less assessments_ 3,360.00
34,524.40
Income from Gratuity Fund reported on 1944 return_$10, 208. 55
Other unreportable income_ 3,735. 64
Gain on sale of securities_ 4, 866. 55 $18,810.74
$15, 713. 66

The mandatory contributions that members of the Exchange have paid to the Gratuity Fund as initiation fees have always been credited to the capital account and have never been reported as income of petitioner. Assessments levied in accordance with the constitution and bylaws which govern the Gratuity Fund have never been reported by petitioner as income.

The amount paid the beneficiaries of a deceased member is by the terms of the constitutional provisions denominated a gratuity and is to be paid clear and free of all assessments and claims of every kind, and under no circumstances is interest demandable thereon.

Upon dissolution of petitioner each member would be entitled to receive his equity in the Gratuity Fund.

In the taxable year 1944 petitioner, as it has done in prior years, filed a single return in which it reported all the receipts of the Exchange and of the trustees of the Gratuity Fund and claimed deductions on behalf of both the Exchange and the trustees of the Gratuity Fund. Included in the income-reported was the amount of $10,208.55 received by the trustees as taxable income from invested funds and the sum of $4,866.55 as gain from the sale of securities from the Gratuity Fund. Included in the deductions on behalf of the trustees was the sum of $34,524.40, computed as follows: amounts paid by the trustees as gratuities in the sum of $37,500 less assessments received in the amount of $3,360, or $34,140, plus miscellaneous expenses of $384.40. In determining his deficiency the respondent allowed as a deduction the sum of $384.40 but disallowed the amount of $34,140. Also included as a deduction claimed by the Exchange was the sum of $900, paid in 1944 to the widow of John C. Colehower, a former employee.

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

Related

Fishman v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Memo. 102 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
John B. Canepa Co. v. Commissioner
1963 T.C. Memo. 337 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Interstate Drop Forge Co. v. Commissioner
1963 T.C. Memo. 149 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Barbourville Brick Co. v. Commissioner
37 T.C. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Estate of Moyer v. Comm'r
32 T.C. 515 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
William H. Swan & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner
1955 T.C. Memo. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 T.C. 355, 1952 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-baltimore-stock-exchange-v-commissioner-tax-1952.