Sherwin v. Commissioner

46 B.T.A. 330, 1942 BTA LEXIS 876
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedFebruary 18, 1942
DocketDocket Nos. 106728-106730.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 B.T.A. 330 (Sherwin v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sherwin v. Commissioner, 46 B.T.A. 330, 1942 BTA LEXIS 876 (bta 1942).

Opinion

[331]*331OPINION.

Smith :

These proceedings, consolidated for hearing, are for the re-determination of deficiencies in tax for 1938 as follows:

[[Image here]]

The questions in issue are: .

(1) Whether the Mid-Continent Securities Co. must include in its gross income for 1938 $82,250 paid as dividends upon certain shares of stock which that company claims to have sold to its two principal stockholders on December 20, 1937, by whom the dividends were actually received.

(2) Whether petitioners John Sherwin and Francis M. Sherwin are each entitled to deduct from his gross income for 1938 interest paid to the Mid-Continent Securities Co. pursuant to the contract for the purchase of the shares of stock above referred to.

The material facts have all been stipulated. We adopt the stipulation as our findings of fact.

The individual petitioners are residents of Willoughby, Ohio. The company also has its principal office in Willoughby, Ohio. All of the petitioners filed their income tax returns for 1938 with the collector at Cleveland, Ohio.

The Mid-Continent Securities Co. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio on August 17, 1922. It has an authorized capital stock of 20,000 shares of class A stock of a par value of $100 per share, and 500 shares of class B stock of no par value. John Sherwin and Francis M. Sherwin each acquired 250 shares of class B stock of the company by purchase in 1922 and each acquired by inheritance 2,875 shares of class A stock from the estate of their father, John Sherwin, on January 16, 1934. On December 31, 1937, and during the year 1938, there were outstanding 500 shares of class B stock and 5,750 shares of class A stock. Each of these individuals, together with members of his family, owned during 1938 one-half of the issued and outstanding shares.

The voting power of the company is vested in the class B stock. The class A stock may be retired at any time at a price of $Í00 per share by unanimous action of the board of directors.

For many years the company was actively engaged in the buying and selling of securities. Under recent revenue acts the company has been classified as a personal holding company.

[332]*332The company has always maintained a separate office, owns its own office furniture and fixtures, conducts its business on its own letterhead stationery, owns a vault, and rents a safety deposit box. The books and records of the company have always been maintained in the most detailed manner by a competent accountant employed on a full-time basis by the company. The records and accounts of the company are checked each year by the Bureau of Internal Bevenue. The company has its own deposit accounts with banks for the deposit of its funds. All funds and deposit accounts of the company have been kept completely separate from the funds and deposit accounts of its stockholders and officers.

The income tax returns of all of the petitioners for the years 1937 and 1938 were made on the cash receipts and disbursements basis.

The company had prospered and by the end of 1936 had accumulated an earned surplus in excess of. $1,000,000. By a letter dated June 12, 1937, John B. Kirk, revenue agent in charge of the Cleveland division, advised the Midland Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, that the United States Treasury Department had determined: “that the loss on stock of The Midland Bank should be allowed as a deduction to stockholders on their income tax returns for the year 1937.” The Mid-Continent Securities Co. owned 5,357.74 shares of that stock at a cost of $1,434,998.76. With the deduction of this loss its return for 1937 would show a very large net loss.

In December 1937 the company owned 57,300 shares of the Bich-man Bros. Co. stock and 12,803 shares of the common stock of the Valley Mould & Iron Corporation. The stock of the former company was listed on the Cleveland Stock Exchange. There was only a thin market for the shares, the total number of shares being sold on the exchange during 1937 amounting to 29,602 shares. The largest number of shares sold in any month was in March, when 3,367 shares were sold.

During December 1937 the stock sold on the stock exchange at prices ranging from 36i/g down to 30. The fair market value of the shares on December 20,1937, was $33 per share.

The shares of stock of the Valley Mould & Iron Corporation were not listed on any exchange. There were some “over-the-counter” transactions in the common stock and the fair market value of the shares on December 20,1937, was $20 per share.

The Mid-Continent Securities Co. desired to sell some of its holdings of stock of the Bichman Bros. Co. and of the Valley Mould & Iron Corporation, in which it had a large paper profit. This profit could be used to reduce a part of its net loss for 1937. It decided to sell 27,000 shares of Bichman Bros. Co. stock and 5,000 shares of Valley Mould & Iron Corporation. It was impossible to obtain the [333]*333fair market price for the stock on a sale of such large blocks. It considered selling them to its two principal stockholders, John Sher-win and Francis M. Sherwin, but before doing so consulted the revenue agent in charge as to whether there was any provision of law or regulation of the respondent to the effect that such a transaction would not be recognized. The question was raised as to whether such “self dealing” had any bearing upon the tax question. The revenue agent knew of no such provision of law or regulation in a case where a taxpayer sold shares of stock at the market and realized a gain therefrom.

On December 20,1937, there was a meeting of the board of directors of the company at which the sale of 13,500 shares of no par common stock of the Rdchman Bros. Co. and of 2,500 shares of common stock of the Valley Mould & Iron Corporation was authorized to each of the petitioners John Sherwin and Francis M. Sherwin. The purchasers were not in a position to pay the full amount of the purchase price in cash at once. Each entered into a contract with the company by which he was to acquire the shares by a down payment of $5,000 and pay the balance on or before December 1, 1942, together with interest at the rate of 4 percent per annum, payable quarterly. The agreement provided that each purchaser should pay to the company at least 50 percent of all dividends received by him upon the shares acquired and that if the amount of dividends received was not sufficient to pay the interest due for any year it should be paid on or before the 10th day of January of the succeeding calendar year. The contract further provided that:

The Buyer shall have the right on or before December 1, 1942, to surrender to the Seller the aforesaid Stocks in full payment and satisfaction of the unpaid purchase price and all accrued interest thereon. Upon the delivery and surrender to the Seller of said Stocks the Buyer shall thereby be released and discharged of all liabilities hereunder and the Seller shall retain all payments received by it hereunder.

Following the meeting of the board of directors of the company a memorandum of sale dated December 20, 1937, was executed by each of the purchasers and the Mid-Continent Securities Co. Certificates for 13,500 shares of the Bichman Bros. Co. stock were endorsed and transferred to the name of John Sherwin under date of December 21,1937.

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

Related

A. F. Lowes Lumber Co. v. Commissioner
1960 T.C. Memo. 141 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Apt v. Birmingham
89 F. Supp. 361 (N.D. Iowa, 1950)
Sherwin v. Commissioner
46 B.T.A. 330 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 B.T.A. 330, 1942 BTA LEXIS 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwin-v-commissioner-bta-1942.