The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States

Second Circuit

The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States

256 F.2d 696, 2 C.B. 943, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6451, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1958

Docket386, Docket 23775

StatusPublished

This text of 256 F.2d 696 (The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States, 256 F.2d 696, 2 C.B. 943, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6451, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5612 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The United States appeals from a summary judgment granting The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. recovery of the amount of stamp taxes which it alleged the government had illegally assessed and collected from it. I.R.C.1939, §§ 1800, 1802, levies such a tax on “eaeh original issue, whether on organization or reorganization, of shares or certificates of stock” by any corporation. The transaction here claimed to be subject to. the tax did not involve the actual issue of any new stock certificates, but only an increase in the corporation’s capital account by the transfer of $6,375,000 from its earned surplus account to its-capital account, thus increasing the capital from $3,725,000 to $10,100,000, and the value of certain issued no-pax'-valuestock from $36.25 to $100 per share.. Judge Rayfiel, in his reasoned opinion, D. C.E.D.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 322, quoted1, from and relied upon the detailed exposition in United States v. National Sugar-Refining Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 113 F.Supp. 157, where Judge Leibell held that stamp-taxes are required only on the actual issuance of capital stock, and not on a bookkeeping entry effecting an addition, to the capital account where no new-stock is issued. More recently this reasoning has been quoted and approved1 by Chief Judge Duffy for his court in American Steel Foundries v. Sauber, T Cir., 239 F.2d 300, and Chief Judge-Gardner for his court in United States v. Archex'-Daniels-Midland Co., 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 130. We find the reasoning-of these various opinions wholly pex- *697 suasive. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. McMahon, 2 Cir., 253 F.2d 663, affirming D.C.S.D.N.Y., 156 F.Supp. 275, which deals with the recapitalization proviso of the same statute, is not in point; for there additional shares were actually issued, and the tax was required only on such additional shares.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The United States appeals from a summary judgment granting The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. recovery of the amount of stamp taxes which it alleged the government had illegally assessed and collected from it. I.R.C.1939, §§ 1800, 1802, levies such a tax on “eaeh original issue, whether on organization or reorganization, of shares or certificates of stock” by any corporation. The transaction here claimed to be subject to. the tax did not involve the actual issue of any new stock certificates, but only an increase in the corporation’s capital account by the transfer of $6,375,000 from its earned surplus account to its-capital account, thus increasing the capital from $3,725,000 to $10,100,000, and the value of certain issued no-pax'-valuestock from $36.25 to $100 per share.. Judge Rayfiel, in his reasoned opinion, D. C.E.D.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 322, quoted1, from and relied upon the detailed exposition in United States v. National Sugar-Refining Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 113 F.Supp. 157, where Judge Leibell held that stamp-taxes are required only on the actual issuance of capital stock, and not on a bookkeeping entry effecting an addition, to the capital account where no new-stock is issued. More recently this reasoning has been quoted and approved1 by Chief Judge Duffy for his court in American Steel Foundries v. Sauber, T Cir., 239 F.2d 300, and Chief Judge-Gardner for his court in United States v. Archex'-Daniels-Midland Co., 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 130. We find the reasoning-of these various opinions wholly pex- *697 suasive. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. McMahon, 2 Cir., 253 F.2d 663, affirming D.C.S.D.N.Y., 156 F.Supp. 275, which deals with the recapitalization proviso of the same statute, is not in point; for there additional shares were actually issued, and the tax was required only on such additional shares.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 F.2d 696, 2 C.B. 943, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6451, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-f-m-schaefer-brewing-co-v-united-states-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack