Stuart Co. v. Commissioner

9 T.C.M. 585, 1950 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 30, 1950
DocketDocket No. 12473.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 T.C.M. 585 (Stuart Co. 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
Stuart Co. v. Commissioner, 9 T.C.M. 585, 1950 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160 (tax 1950).

Opinion

The Stuart Company v. Commissioner.
Stuart Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 12473.
United States Tax Court
1950 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160; 9 T.C.M. (CCH) 585; T.C.M. (RIA) 50171;
June 30, 1950

*160 On the facts, held, that $75,000 paid by the petitioner to secure the cancellation of an onerous contract is properly deductible during the fiscal year 1943 as an ordinary and necessary business expense, and that $122,700 which the petitioner was obligated to pay for the purchase of a trade mark is a capital expenditure which is not deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.

A. Calder Mackay, Esq., Arthur McGregor, Esq., and F. Edward Little, Esq., 728 Pacific Mutual Bldg., 523 West Sixth St., Los Angeles, Calif., for the petitioner. R. E. Maiden, Esq., for the respondent.

HARRON

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner has determined deficiencies in the petitioner's income tax, declared-value excess profits tax, and excess profits tax*161 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1943, March 31, 1944, and March 31, 1945, as follows:

Declared-
Value
ExcessExcess
Fiscal YearIncomeProfitsProfits
EndedTaxTaxTax
March 31, 1943$1,733.81$ 263.70$ 8,495.95
March 31, 194452,808.66
March 31, 1945287.136,591.8068,286.82

The issue in this proceeding is whether certain payments made by the petitioner during the years in question were made, either in part or in whole, to secure the cancellation of an onerous contract; or whether they were made, either in part or in whole, for the purchase of a trade-mark. The respondent contends that the entire payments were capital expenditures made to purchase a trade-mark and has asserted the above deficiencies. The petitioner contends that the entire payments were ordinary and necessary business expenses made to secure relief from an onerous contract and claims an overpayment in his taxes for the years in question.

The parties are in agreement on a number of other issues raised by the pleadings relative to adjustments in the petitioner's taxes for the years in question which are dependent upon the decision of the main issue*162 in the proceeding.

The petitioner filed its returns for the years in question with the collector for the sixth district of California.

The record in this proceeding consists of oral testimony and various exhibits.

Findings of Fact

Sometime in the fall of 1940, Arthur Hanisch, who was the principal organizer and stockholder of The Stuart Company, which is the petitioner herein, decided to go into business in California. In December of 1940, Hanisch was introduced to Dr. Henry Borsook, who was a professor of biochemistry at the California Institute of Technology, and Maxwell H. Lewis, who was the vice president of The Vita-Food Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Vita-Food") which had been organized under the laws of California in November, 1940.

Dr. Borsook was interested in providing adequate vitamin concentrates to the greatest number of people at the lowest possible cost and had done a great deal of research in vitamins and in nutrition. He was a consultant to Vita-Food which manufactured and distributed locally at this time a vitamin concentrate which had been developed under the supervision of Dr. Borsook. Vita-Food was primarily interested in the manufacture of*163 the vitamin concentrates and desired to associate itself with someone who would be willing to undertake national distribution of its vitamin products. Accordingly, on February 3, 1941, Hanisch entered into an informal agreement with Vita-Food which provided that Hanisch was to set up a sales and merchandising organization to distribute the vitamin concentrate produced by Vita-Food at stipulated retail prices. Hanisch agreed to purchase 3,000 gallons of the vitamin concentrate from Vita-Food and to market it under a trade name which would remain the property of Vita-Food.

On March 8, 1941, Hanisch entered into a subsequent informal agreement with Vita-Food under which he agreed to purchase an additional 3,000 gallons of the vitamin concentrate. This agreement also provided that:

"We [Vita-Food] understand that you [Hanisch] are in process of forming two corporations, one to be named 'The Shaler Food Products Company', which company will sell to food outlets, under the name 'Vitaplex' the concentrate purchased by you under our said letter of February 3rd, upon condition that such outlets sell the same to consumers at a price not in excess of $1.60 per 16 oz. bottle; and the other*164 to be named 'The Stuart Company', whose sales will be confined to drug stores and allied outlets [under the name 'The Stuart Formula'] for resale at a price not in excess of $1.85 per 16 oz. bottle.

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

Related

Great Lakes Pipe Line Company v. United States
352 F. Supp. 1159 (W.D. Missouri, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 T.C.M. 585, 1950 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-co-v-commissioner-tax-1950.