Solbar Eastern Corp. v. Commissioner

1975 T.C. Memo. 205, 34 T.C.M. 880, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 168
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 26, 1975
DocketDocket No. 4924-71.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1975 T.C. Memo. 205 (Solbar Eastern Corp. 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
Solbar Eastern Corp. v. Commissioner, 1975 T.C. Memo. 205, 34 T.C.M. 880, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 168 (tax 1975).

Opinion

SOLBAR EASTERN CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Solbar Eastern Corp. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 4924-71.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1975-205; 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 168; 34 T.C.M. (CCH) 880; T.C.M. (RIA) 750205;
June 26, 1975, Filed
Raymond Wallenstein, for the petitioner.
Alan R. Herson, for the respondent.

FEATHERSTON

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FEATHERSTON, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner is liable, as transferee, for a deficiency in the amount of $87,731.30 in income tax, plus interest as provided by law, due from National Technology, Inc., for the taxable year ended November 30, 1966. The only issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable, under section 6901, 1/ either at law*169 or in equity, for the unpaid income tax liabilities of National Technology, Inc.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner Solbar Eastern Corporation (hereinafter referred to as petitioner or Solbar) is a New York corporation with principal offices located in New York, New York. Its president is Solomon Eisenrod (hereinafter Eisenrod).

National Technology, Inc. (hereinafter National or transferor), was incorporated under the laws of California. Also incorporated under the laws of California was Western Technology, Inc. (hereinafter Western). Wayne Copeland (hereinafter Copeland) was president of National and Western. Both corporations manufactured, distributed, and sold various electronic products.

In September 1967, petitioner was retained by National, Western, Copeland, and Fred Barish (hereinafter Barish), an owner of a proprietary interest in National and Western, to obtain long-term financing for National and Western in the Eastern money market, or alternatively to arrange underwriting or acquisition by purchase or merger of either or both*170 of said corporations.

Petitioner interested a New York commercial lender in extending long-term credit to National and Western, provided that all the borrowers' capital stock would be deposited with the lender as collateral for the loan. The loan was never extended because due to difficulties encountered in obtaining stock issuance permits from the California Commissioner of Corporations, no stock had been issued by either corporation.

While petitioner was informed that ownership of National and Western was divided roughly 1/3 and 2/3 between Copeland and Barish and/or Mutual Equity Capital Corporation (hereinafter Mutual Equity), a small business investment corporation wholly owned by Barish, 2/ respectively, petitioner was never advised that Copeland and Barish had agreed to any definite breakdown of their ownership interests.

The most serious impediment to National's and Western's obtaining stock issuance permits was a marital dispute between Copeland*171 and his wife, Bertha Mae Copeland (hereinafter Mrs. Copeland), who claimed ownership rights in both corporations. Further confusion existed as to the precise beneficial ownership of both corporations because Copeland and Barish had promised certain individuals some of the stock: J. H. Mitchell, Jr. (hereinafter Mitchell), the attorney for both corporations and for Copeland and Barish; his associate, William F. Raff (hereinafter Raff) (5 percent to each); Robert J. Heller (hereinafter Heller), a former employee of National (10 percent); and Wynn Williams (an undisclosed percentage).

Copeland, Barish, and petitioner soon realized that prospective lenders and underwriters would be reluctant to transact business with National and Western because of the dispute as to the beneficial ownership of the stock of these corporations. Therefore, in an attempt to assure prospective lenders and underwriters that outstanding potential claims to stock ownership would not be encountered, they agreed that petitioner, acting as agent for National, Western, Copeland, and Barish, would acquire options to purchase the proprietary interests claimed by Mrs. Copeland, Mitchell, Raff, and Heller.

On February 22, 1968, an*172 agreement was reached between petitioner and Mrs. Copeland whereby, in consideration of $10,000 paid to her, petitioner acquired an option, extending to April 30, 1968, to purchase all of her "right, title and interest" in National and Western. The agreement elaborated upon petitioner's reasons for obtaining the option, namely in order to aid its attempts to secure financing or underwriting. The consideration was furnished by National and Western. The agreement further provided for two extensions of the original option period, each requiring a payment of $5,000 to Mrs. Copeland. Each of these payments was also supplied by National or Western.

On February 23, 1968, petitioner obtained similar option agreements from Heller, Mitchell, and Raff. The funds paid to the optionors under these agreements were also supplied by National or Western.

In April 1968, petitioner attempted to set forth in writing a more definitive statement as to the ownership of National and Western which would aid in its negotiations as agent for the corporations. The instrument recited that 2/3 of all ownership rights in both corporations were the property of Mutual Equity and that the remaining 1/3 belonged*173 to Copeland. The instrument also set forth a list of the various persons who claimed beneficial interests in the two corporations, stated that petitioner held such claimants' options, and provided that:

SOLBAR will assign said options to acquire the aforesaid claims of Bertha Mae Copeland, Robert J. Heller, J. H. Mitchell, Jr. (and William F. Raff) and Wynn Williams to NATIONAL and/or WESTERN, or to such other persons as NATIONAL may in writing direct SOLBAR; * * *

Neither National, Western, Copeland, nor Barish ever signed the document.

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

Related

Commissioner v. Stern
357 U.S. 39 (Supreme Court, 1958)
Marr v. Postal Union Life Insurance Co.
105 P.2d 649 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Kelley v. R. F. Jones Co.
272 Cal. App. 2d 113 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Benoit v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 656 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Grieb v. Commissioner
36 T.C. 156 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Miller v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 593 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
C.B.C. Super Markets, Inc. v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 882 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Mysse v. Commissioner
57 T.C. 680 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Brewer v. Commissioner
17 B.T.A. 713 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Gould v. Commissioner
21 B.T.A. 824 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1930)
Burdick v. Commissioner
24 B.T.A. 1297 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)
Graham v. Commissioner
26 B.T.A. 301 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1932)
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel Co. v. Commissioner
34 B.T.A. 540 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1936)
Commissioner v. Estate of Stone
63 F.2d 997 (Ninth Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1975 T.C. Memo. 205, 34 T.C.M. 880, 1975 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solbar-eastern-corp-v-commissioner-tax-1975.