Thornhill v. Commissioner

37 T.C. 988, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 185
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 1962
DocketDocket Nos. 86350, 86351
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 T.C. 988 (Thornhill 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
Thornhill v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 988, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 185 (tax 1962).

Opinion

Fisher, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in income taxes of petitioners as follows:

[[Image here]]

The sole issue presented is whether or not the exercise of stock options by petitioners in 1956 to purchase stock of U.S. Polymeric Chemicals, Inc., gave rise to taxable income to petitioners to the extent of the difference between the fair market value of the stock and the option price thereof at the time the options were exercised.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

Some of the facts are stipulated and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioner William S. Thornhill has been a resident at all times material hereto of Riverside, Connecticut. He and his wife, Margaret M. Thornhill, filed their joint income tax return for the taxable year 1956 with the district director of internal revenue, Lower Manhattan District, New York, New York.

Petitioner Maarten W. J. Oudegeest has been a resident at all times material hereto of Riverside, Connecticut. He and his wife, Carol T. Oudegeest, filed their joint return for the taxable year 1956 with the district director for the district of Connecticut.

The significant facts relate to the husbands, who are herein sometimes referred to as petitioners.

In 1950 petitioners and a third party, A. J. Fisher, Jr. (sometimes herein referred to as the promoters), entered into negotiations with the investment banking firm of Dominick & Dominick for the raising of capital to organize and operate a corporate manufacturing enterprise. Being impressed with the talents of the promoters and the merits of their proposed enterprise, Dominick & Dominick took the proposition up with a limited group of investors with a view to a financing program.

While Dominick & Dominick judged the promoters to be skilled chemists and salesmen, the latter appeared too untested as a management team to warrant placing in their hands immediate control of the projected business. Henees, the plan of organization worked out among the parties in interest contemplated that initial common stock voting control remain for the time being in the hands of the investors with Dominick & Dominick as their representatives, but that the promoters would have the opportunity of assuming voting control of the business after they had succeeded in building a going concern with sufficient substance to pay off the initial investment which was to be furnished by the investors in the form of subscriptions to preferred stock.

As a result of these negotiations, the promoters entered into a written agreement dated October 3, 1950, with a group of investors and Dominick & Dominick representing the investors, entitled “U.S. Polymeric Chemicals, Inc., Memorandum of Corporate Structure and Financing” (sometimes referred to as the “October 3, 1950, Subscription Agreement”).

The October 3, 1950, subscription agreement provided that Fisher, Oudegeest, and Thornhill would be the corporation’s initial executive officers and that they would enter into employment contracts with the corporation for a period of 5 years. The first meeting of the board of directors of U.S. Polymeric Chemicals, Inc., held on October 16, 1950, elected A. J. Fisher, Jr., M. W. J. Oudegeest, and W. S. Thorn-hill as officers and approved a 5-year employment contract dated October 17, 1950, which provided for a minimum yearly salary for each of $9,500. The minimum salary was subject to change.

In accordance with the provisions of the October 3, 1950, subscription agreement, the investors pledged $100,000 of capital represented by their subscriptions to 1,000 shares of no-par-$6 preferred stock (nonvoting) at $99.26½ per share and 1,470 shares of 50-cent-par-value common stock (voting) at its stated par value of 50 cents per share. The promoters were allotted and subscribed for collectively 1,380 shares of common stock, or 460 shares each, and Dominick & Dominick were allotted 150 shares of common stock for their services. Out of the total 3,000 shares of common stock to be initially issued, the investor group were to acquire 49 percent of voting control, the promoters 46 percent thereof, and Dominick & Dominick 5 percent thereof, thus lodging in the latter the balance of voting power as between the promoters and the investor group.

To carry out the plan whereby the promoters were to have an opportunity to acquire voting control, each of the promoters was to have an option to purchase 100 additional shares of common stock (or a total of 300 shares) at the same price upon retirement of all of the preferred stock.

The certificate of incorporation of the new enterprise under the name of U.S. Polymeric Chemicals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the company), embodied the capital structure contemplated in the October 3,1950, subscription agreement, and specified the option rights of the three promoters, together with provisions protecting them against dilution of their potential voting rights in case the company should issue shares of its common stock in excess of the initial issue of 3,000 shares. Such common stock provisions were as follows:

3. Three hundred (300) shares of unissued Common Stock shall be set aside and held in reserve for issuance under an option agreement to be given by the Corporation to A. J. Fisher, Jr., M. Oudegeest and W. S. Thornhill for the purchase by each of them at par of one hundred (100) shares within one year after the retirement of all issued and outstanding shares of $6 Preferred Stock, provided, that, if, prior to the exercise of such option, Common Stock shall be issued in excess of 3,000 shares, then in addition to the said 300 shares so set aside under option, there shall be set aside and reserved under such option, shares of Common Stock at the rate of one share for each ten shares of Common Stock of the Corporation issued in excess of 3,000 shares, but the purchase price of such additional optioned shares, if any, shall be the same per share as the issuing price per share of the shares of Common Stock issued in excess of 3,000 shares by which such additional optioned shares shall be respectively measured as aforesaid.
4. Holders of Common Stock shall have the pre-emptive right to subscribe for any issue of shares of Capital Stock of the Corporation of any class in excess of 1,000 shares of $6 Preferred Stock and 3,000 shares of Common Stock plus such number of shares of Common Stock as shall have been set aside and held in reserve under the aforementioned option agreement, and no such pre-emptive right shall apply to the issue of said 1,000 shares of $6 Preferred Stock and said 3,000 shares of Common Stock plus said number of shares of Common Stock so reserved under option.

At the first organizational meeting of the company’s board of directors on October 16, 1950, the details of the October 3, 1950, subscription agreement were carried out, including authorization of the company to enter into a stock option agreement with the promoters, which as executed was in the following terms:

U.S. PolymeRIO Chemicals, Inc.
New YorJc, N.Y.
October IS, 1950
Mr. Arthur J. Fisher, Jr.

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

Related

Victorson v. Commissioner
1962 T.C. Memo. 231 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)
Thornhill v. Commissioner
37 T.C. 988 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 T.C. 988, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornhill-v-commissioner-tax-1962.