Philadelphia Quartz Co. v. United States

374 F.2d 512, 179 Ct. Cl. 191
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 17, 1967
DocketNo. 404-64 No. 421-64
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 512 (Philadelphia Quartz Co. 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
Philadelphia Quartz Co. v. United States, 374 F.2d 512, 179 Ct. Cl. 191 (cc 1967).

Opinion

Laramore, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These claims1 put in issue the character of income resulting from the forfeiture of deposits on returnable steel drums used for the shipment of industrial chemicals. Plaintiffs assert the income is capital gain from the sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of 'business assets under section 1231, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 under this court’s holding in E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 274, 288 F. 2d 904 (1961). The defendant contends these actions do not fall within the compass of the duPont holding because of factual distinctions, and that the governing authority is Corn Products Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U.S. 46 (1955), which would deny favorable “1231” treatment. Alternatively, defendant argues plaintiffs have failed to show the sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion [193]*193required for capital gain treatment. We think that the facts in the present actions present the same legal issue as those in duPont, and that the reasoning of that opinion applies with equal force here. In the present opinion, we do no more than readopt the reasoning of that case.

The facts have been stipulated. During the tax years before us, the Philadelphia Quartz Company (plaintiff in Case No. 40N64) shipped chemical products in returnable steel drums to those customers who required less than tank car or tank truck lots. These drums, which were roughly three feet long and two feet in diameter, were manufactured of 14-gauge steel by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation; they had a 55-gallon capacity and weighed from 550 to 745 pounds when filled. Each drum bore the following legend in raised letters on its head or on an attached brass tag: “Philadelphia Quartz Co. owns this drum. It is never sold.” Consistent with this, the invoices relating to the shipment of chemicals in the drum showed a separate hilling item: “returnable drums — deposit of $15.00 each,” and had the same statement that was embossed on the drum or the attached brass tag with the additional information: “Conditions and certification on back hereof are part of this invoice.” The back of the invoice contained the following information:

RETURNABLE DRUM TERMS
These conditions are part of each invoice bearing a returnable drum charge.
The drums for which a deposit charge is made remain the property of Philadelphia Quartz Company. The deposit charge is subject to refund as outlined by conditions below.
I. Identification—
A. Drum head embossed and/or brass tag attached— “Philadelphia Quartz Co. owns this drum. It is never sold.”
* ❖ >Jc # sK
II. Charge—
A. $15.00 each [$10.00 in some instances], payable “net cash in 30 days from date of invoice.”
[194]*194C. Payment of deposit dobs not cancel conditions below.
III. Credit—
•{•
B. Following receipt of drum in good condition within one year from date of shipment.
*****
D. Refund checks are issued monthly.

The other document attending each transaction was the sales agreement which provided:

Returnable drums shall remain the property of Seller [plaintiff]. At the time of each shipment Buyer agrees to pay Seller’s deposit charge then hi effect and to return the drums to Seller promptly as emptied with freight prepaid by Buyer. Seller agrees to credit Buyer with the amount of such deposit charge on drums returned within one year if received in good condition at Seller’s plant from which shipped.

The primary purpose of this arrangement was to secure return of the drums. This may be inferred from a number of factors. First, the amounts of the required deposits were significantly higher than the costs of the drums. The drums for which a $10 deposit was required cost $6.77 on average; those requiring a $15 deposit cost $7.51 on average. Although the stipulation does not so state, it seems apparent that chemical buyers wanting drums could buy them for less, though perhaps not at the same (presumably) low bulk rate paid by Philadelphia Quartz Company to Jones & Laughlin. This proposition assumes greater force when the depreciable character of the drums is considered. These drums were constantly reused and had an average life of 6% years for tax purposes. Assuming the depreciable life of the drums was related to reality, it is evident that older drums were worth less than newer, making the “cost-deposit” differential even greater on older drums. In short, a drum “purchased” by forfeiture of the deposit was no bargain. Second, the value of the drums was substantial in relation to the value of the chemicals shipped in them. Philadelphia Quartz Company shipped three grades of material in these drums, the low priced averaging $10.70 per drum, medium priced $18.31 per drum, and high priced $41.53 per drum, respectively. [195]*195Third, it has been stipulated that the returnable drum system, to the extent it succeeded, enabled the company to avoid the administrative burden of continually purchasing, stocking and accounting for drums. Fourth, the stipulation shows that most customers returned the drums and that the company gave credits even for late returns.

For the taxable year 1957, the Philadelphia Quartz Company included in its taxable income one-fourth of the amount carried on its books as of December 31,1964, as the liability for unreturned deposits. (The other three-fourths had been previously included in income in the preceding three years.) From 1968 through 1960, a different system was used; the annual excess of drums shipped over drums returned was averaged for the prior seven years, and the resulting average for one year was multiplied by the $15 deposit amount to produce an income figure. There is apparently no question that this method of estimating the current year’s income from forfeited deposits was permissible in this case. The amounts claimed as overpayments for 1957 through 1960 are in each instance the difference between the 52 percent tax paid on the income and the 25 percent capital gains rate.

The facts stipulated by Philadelphia Quartz Company of California (plaintiff in Case No. 421-64) and the defendant are almost identical. The invoices, although different, were equally clear in specifying that the drums were the property of the company and returnable. Also different was the cost of the drums, but although higher, it was less than the deposit price. The other differences are of still less significance. The claims for refund relate to the taxable years 1958 through 1960. The method of computing the income for. 1958 was identical to that used by the other plaintiff for its taxable year 1957. For 1959, the earlier described averaging method was used to compute the income from the forfeited deposits, and for 1960, since the seven year average showed an excess of returns over shipments, the income was computed by reducing the deposit liability to inactive accounts.

The duPont

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

Related

Hollywood Baseball Asso. v. Commissioner
49 T.C. 338 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Deltide Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc. v. United States
279 F. Supp. 661 (E.D. Louisiana, 1968)
Grant Oil Tool Company v. The United States
381 F.2d 389 (Court of Claims, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 F.2d 512, 179 Ct. Cl. 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-quartz-co-v-united-states-cc-1967.