San Gabriel Valley Dump, Inc. v. Commissioner

1968 T.C. Memo. 134, 27 T.C.M. 652, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 162
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 27, 1968
DocketDocket No. 1708-66.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1968 T.C. Memo. 134 (San Gabriel Valley Dump, Inc. 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
San Gabriel Valley Dump, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1968 T.C. Memo. 134, 27 T.C.M. 652, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 162 (tax 1968).

Opinion

San Gabriel Valley Dump, Inc. v. Commissioner.
San Gabriel Valley Dump, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 1708-66.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1968-134; 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 162; 27 T.C.M. (CCH) 652; T.C.M. (RIA) 68134;
June 27, 1968, Filed
*162 Austin H. Peck, Jr., Seventeenth Floor, 615 S. Flower St., Los Angeles, Calif., and M. Rogue Hemley, for the petitioner. Marion Malone, for the respondent.

FORRESTER

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FORRESTER, Judge: Respondent has determined deficiencies in petitioner's income taxes for the calendar years 1960 through 1964 in the following amounts:

YearDeficiency
1960$ 1,012.26
19617,243.68
196228,800.14
196337,182.43
196433,449.06

In his statutory notice of deficiencies, respondent determined that a $40 mathematical error existed in petitioner's 1962 return, resulting in an overstatement of its deductions. He now concedes that no such error existed in the return.

The only issue remaining is whether amounts petitioner deducted as rent expense for the years 1958 through 1964 represented valid deductions or exclusions from its gross income. 1

*163 Findings of Fact

Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found.

The petitioner, San Gabriel Dump, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, having its principal office, at the time the petition in this 653 case was filed and all other relevant times, at Gardena, California. Its Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1958 through 1964 were filed with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles, California.

During the years in issue petitioner has engaged in the business of operating a rubbish dump on approximately 500 acres of real property located in the San Gabriel Valley, just east of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter referred to as the "San Gabriel site").

Petitioner's sole shareholder is William R. Ward (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Ward). Prior to incorporating the petitioner, Ward operated a small rubbish dump in the Gardena area of California, filling in the old Dominguez Estuary. While he was filling in the estuary, Ward was contacted by two business partners, Maynard B. Henry and Raymond C. Christl (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Henry and Christl, respectively).

Henry and Christl*164 informed Ward that they had located and were prepared to develop a large garbage dump site in Baldwin Hills, California (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Baldwin Hills site). Ward was experienced in the garbage disposal business, and they wanted him as the active manager of the dump site. As consideration, they offered, and Ward accepted, 35 percent of the net profits of the business. Ward was satisfied with the agreement, concluding that since Henry and Christl had obtained the site and done the bulk of the work, they were entitled to a large percentage of the profits. The remaining shares of the Baldwin Hills site profits (apart from Ward's 35 percent) were owned 47 i/2 percent by Christl and his family, 12 1/2 percent by Henry, and 5 percent by a fourth party, who had been instrumental in developing the operation.

Ward was quite pleased to become involved with Henry and Christl because, in his own words -

Moving from Gardena into the central part of Los Angeles put me, I should say, probably in the big league operation. Before then I was a small dump operator. Now I was regarded as a big dump operator, and they explained to me, "This is just the beginning. We have actively*165 been looking for dump sites for many years. We know that end of the business.

"We think you are a good operator. We will continue to seek out good sites, and if we find them, would you operate them for us on some similar business basis?"

And I said I would.

The Baldwin Hills site turned out to be quite successful and all parties involved were generally pleased that they had entered into the agreement. In light of this success, future endeavors along similar lines were contemplated.

Ward was valuable to Henry and Christl because he was a good manager. Christl and Henry were valuable to Ward because they were willing to undertake those facets of developing and maintaining a site for which Ward either did not have time or was disinterested. Ward was solely interested in managing dumps. Henry and Christl were willing to find and qualify suitable sites. Henry, an attorney, was an expert at obtaining the various zoning changes and permits needed to legally operate a dump. Christl was good at "following through on detail," reminding Ward of his operating responsibilities, and looking into possibilities for new sites.

Ward was quite willing to have Henry and Christl join him in developing*166 the San Gabriel site when the Pellissier family, who owned the site, approached him in regard to his operating a dump there. He handled the negotiations for the San Gabriel site himself because the Pellissier family trusted him and had respect for his managerial abilities in operating a garbage dump. During the negotiations, he was acting for Henry and Christl and informed the Pellissiers that Henry, though not necessarily Christl, was also to be an interested party to whatever agreement was eventually reached.

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

Related

Griffiths v. Commissioner
308 U.S. 355 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Ernst Kern Co. v. Commissioner
1 T.C. 249 (U.S. Tax Court, 1942)
Dreymann v. Comm'r
11 T.C. 153 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Southern Ford Tractor Corp. v. Commissioner
29 T.C. 833 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Anderson Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner
39 T.C. 1027 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
General Baking Co. v. Commissioner
48 T.C. 201 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)
Fry v. Commissioner
5 T.C. 1058 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)
Burke v. Commissioner
5 T.C. 1167 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1968 T.C. Memo. 134, 27 T.C.M. 652, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-gabriel-valley-dump-inc-v-commissioner-tax-1968.