Schwartz v. Commissioner

1975 T.C. Memo. 267, 34 T.C.M. 1146, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1975
DocketDocket Nos. 8255-72, 8379-72.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1975 T.C. Memo. 267 (Schwartz 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
Schwartz v. Commissioner, 1975 T.C. Memo. 267, 34 T.C.M. 1146, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105 (tax 1975).

Opinion

BURNETT SCHWARTZ, ET AL., 1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Schwartz v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 8255-72, 8379-72.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1975-267; 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105; 34 T.C.M. (CCH) 1146; T.C.M. (RIA) 750267;
August 19, 1975, Filed
Burnett Schwartz, pro se.
John B. Turner, for the respondent.

FAY

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FAY, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $37,730.32 in estate tax of the Estate of Sam Melman, Jr., Deceased, plus an addition of $1,886.52 under section 6651(a), 2 and has asserted personal liability against petitioners for the tax as executors pursuant to section 3467 of the Revised*106 Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C., sec. 192).

We are asked to decide whether petitioners are personally liable for the estate tax owing and whether such deficiencies should be assessed against petitioners.

By stipulation of the parties, respondent assumed the burden of proof. Trial was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on March 19 and 20, 1974.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Certain facts were stipulated by the parties and are so found.

Sam Melman, Jr., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the decedent) a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, died on November 1, 1967. The will was filed for probate in the Probate Court of the City of St. Louis, File No. 139029. Burnett Schwartz, Max L. Raskin, and Gene J. Melman were duly appointed executors of the Estate of Sam Melman, Jr., Deceased, by that Court on November 22, 1967.

On August 19, 1969, the executors filed a United States estate tax return with the District Director, Internal Revenue Service, St. Louis, Missouri. The return showed a taxable estate of $134,085.59, and an estate tax of $29,820.31.

*107 The estate tax return of the Estate of Sam Melman, Jr., Deceased, has been audited by the Internal Revenue Service, and the liability has been the subject of litigation in this Court as Docket No. 8300-72. That case has been settled, and it is agreed for purposes of this case that the estate tax liability of the Estate of Sam Melman, Jr., Deceased, is $29,820.31. In addition, there is due from the estate an amount of $1,491.02, which is an addition to the tax imposed for late filing under section 6651(a), amounting to a total estate tax of $31,311.33, plus interest.

No payment of estate tax was made when the return was filed nor has such payment been made thereafter.

The estate was composed of two principal assets both of which were related to businesses owned and operated by decedent during his life. The larger of the two assets was 2,263 shares of common stock of DuroChrome Corporation (hereinafter DuroChrome), representing 71 percent of all outstanding shares of that corporation. DuroChrome, a Missouri corporation organized in 1929, manufactured commercial seating equipment sold nationally through territorial sales representatives. Decedent acquired his interest in DuroChrome*108 in 1954. He acted as its president and managed its day-to-day affairs. DuroChrome was operating successfully and was showing a profit at the time of decedent's death.

The estate's other significant asset was decedent's interest in Melman Fixture Company (hereinafter Melman Fixture) a corporation wholly owned by him. Melman Fixture was the decedent's original business. It manufactured seating equipment and seating parts and acted as partial supplier for DuroChrome. Although it had shown losses for several years prior to his death, decedent was reluctant to dispose of it as a matter of sentiment.

At the date of death, decedent was indebted to DuroChrome in the amount of $214,336.05.

The books and records of Melman Fixture showed an obligation due the decedent in the amount of $142,727.00.

Due to Melman Fixture's dependency on personal services of the decedent and a period of successive losses, the stock of that corporation was valueless on the date of decedent's death.

The DuroChrome stock held by decedent's estate had a value of approximately $400,000 on the date of decedent's death. But with decedent no longer managing its business, DuroChrome suffered reversals in 1969 and*109 1970, its financial statements reflecting respective losses of $137,163 and $519,437 for those years. For the first quarter of 1971, the records showed a loss of $125,217 for the period ended March 31, 1971.

On August 17, 1971, DuroChrome made a common law assignment for the benefit of creditors. On that date, the stock of DuroChrome held by the estate was valueless.

During the administration of the estate, various distributions from its assets were made. The largest of these distributions was made pursuant to a settlement of a probate dispute with the decedent's widow, Florence Melman (Florence). This settlement was occasioned when, contrary to an ante-nuptial agreement into which she had entered, Florence expressed an intention to claim a one-third interest in the estate under section 474.160, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1949. 3

*110 The executors of the estate entered into negotiations with Florence, and having arrived at a tentative agreement with her, filed a petition in the Probate Court for the City of St. Louis seeking permission to enter into the agreement.

The agreement provided that Florence would receive the following:

(1) Allowance for exempt property as a surviving spouse; 4

(2) Family allowance in the amount of $25,000; 5

(3) Homestead allowance in the amount of $7,500; 6

(4) In full satisfaction of her claim in electing to take against the will, Florence agreed to accept the sum of $75,500 plus a Lincoln automobile, valued at $2,545.

In total, she was to receive a sum of $110,545.

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

Related

United States v. Leo Lutz
295 F.2d 736 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
Botz v. Helvering
134 F.2d 538 (Eighth Circuit, 1943)
Kieferdorf v. Commissioner
1 T.C. 772 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
McKnight v. Commissioner
15 T.C. 730 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Leach v. Commissioner
21 T.C. 70 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
Benoit v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 656 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Grieb v. Commissioner
36 T.C. 156 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Smith v. Commissioner
24 B.T.A. 807 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)
Wright v. Commissioner
28 B.T.A. 543 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1933)
Borall Corp. v. Commissioner
167 F.2d 865 (Second Circuit, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1975 T.C. Memo. 267, 34 T.C.M. 1146, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-commissioner-tax-1975.