Smith v. Commissioner

10 T.C.M. 1124, 1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 T.C. 135
United States Tax Court·Decided November 30, 1951·No. Docket No. 28315.·Unpublished

Opinion

Cornelius M. Smith v. Commissioner.
Smith v. Commissioner
Docket No. 28315.
United States Tax Court
1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27; 10 T.C.M. (CCH) 1124; T.C.M. (RIA) 51340;
November 30, 1951

*27 Petitioner entered into a partnership agreement on January 2, 1945 with his two sons, then aged 28 and 22. The partnership succeeded a corporation and the income of the business was received from personal services rendered its clients by the partners and some sixty or more employees. During the taxable year 1946 petitioner's elder son rendered services throughout the year and his younger son rendered part-time services thereafter. Each partner withdrew his respective share of income from the business and the sons spent or invested these sums without accounting to their father. The Commissioner contends the younger son was not a bona fide partner during the first eight months of the taxable year. Held, the younger son was a member of the partnership throughout the entire taxable year, Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733,.

Richard P. Jackson, Esq., and William B. Van Buren, Esq., for the petitioner. Michael Waris, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.

BLACK

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner has determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the year 1946 of $66,140.03.

The deficiency arises by virtue of an addition*28 by respondent of $83,049.45 to the partnership income reported by petitioner. The net income of the partnership was reported on individual tax returns of petitioner and his two sons in the following amounts:

PartnerPer centAmount
Cornelius M. Smith40$55,616.28
Cornelius M. Smith, Jr.3041,712.20
Raleigh L. Smith3041,712.20
Total[100]$139,040.68

The Commissioner determined that the partnership earned $138,665.73 during the year 1946 and taxed the entire amount to petitioner. Respondent now concedes on brief that "petitioner's older son was a valid partner for the entire year 1946 and that his younger son was a valid partner for the last four months of 1946." The only issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether petitioner's younger son was, for Federal income tax purposes, a valid member of the partnership during the period January 1, 1946 to September 1, 1946.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner was married and resided in New Rochelle, New York during the calendar year 1946. He filed an income tax return for the year 1946 with the collector of internal revenue for the third district of New York. Petitioner did not file a joint return with*29 his wife, but she was claimed on his return as an exemption, and it was stated on his return that she did not file a separate return.

Petitioner was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland. While attending Baltimore City College petitioner was a correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Petitioner planned to study medicine at Johns Hopkins but was prevented by the condition of family finances. Petitioner continued to work for the Sun, and he was assigned to cover the activities of a fund-raising campaign which resulted in the raising of $100,000 for the construction in Baltimore of a sanatorium for tubercular patients. It was here that petitioner first became interested in the field of fund raising to which he has since devoted most of his business life.

Upon leaving the Baltimore Sun, petitiner was associated in turn with newspapers in Philadelphia and New York and with a Chicago publishing house before turning his full attention to the fund-raising business with Frederick Barber. Petitioner decided to limit his activities to capital fund raising for hospitals and he disassociated himself from Barber who was engaged in general fund raising and he commenced business for himself.

In*30 1919 the petitioner, Allen S. Will, former city editor of the Baltimore Sun, and Charles D. Folsom, a New York attorney, formed the partnership, Will, Folsom and Smith, which was engaged solely in hospital fund raising. Will subsequently withdrew from the partnership and petitioner and Folsom continued the business under the same name until Folsom's death in 1933.

Following the termination of the partnership upon Folsom's death, the petitioner, on the advice of his attorneys, formed the corporation, Will, Folsom and Smith, Inc., to carry on the business. The stockholders of the new corporation were the petitioner's wife, Mary, who held 13 shares, Dwight Folsom, son of the former partner, with 13 shares, Lewis Stoneham with 10 shares, and Harte B. Hill with five shares. In 1936 Hill decided to move to the West and his stock was surrendered to the corporation. In 1937, Dwight Folsom who had been employed by the partnership and the corporation left to establish his own business. Folsom sold his stock in the corporation to Mary Smith and Louis Stoneman, the remaining stockholders. During the period from 1942 to 1944, Stoneman's health deteriorated perceptibly and, in mid-1944 when it*31 became apparent that he was no longer able to perform his functions as head of the public relations department of the business, negotiations relative to his complete retirement were undertaken. In December 1944 Stoneman's stock was purchased by petitioner and Stoneman retired from the business.

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

Smith v. Commissioner, 10 T.C.M. 1124, 1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27 (tax 1951).

10 T.C.M. 1124 (Smith v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commissioner v. Culbertson
337 U.S. 733 (Supreme Court, 1949)