United Carbon Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

90 F.2d 43, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 796, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3753
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1937
Docket4151
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 90 F.2d 43 (United Carbon Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United Carbon Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 90 F.2d 43, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 796, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3753 (4th Cir. 1937).

Opinion

' SOPER, Circuit Judge.

The question presented in this case involving income taxes is whether the basis for computing depreciation and depletion allowances' on exhaustible assets acquired' from certain transferors by the taxpaying corporation in exchange for its capital stock is the fair market value of the assets at the time of acquisition, or the cost thereof to the transferors. The basis upon which depletion, exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence are allowed by statute is the same as is provided for the purpose of determining the gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of the property. This is the provision of the Revenue Act of 1926, § 204 (c) 44 Stat. 9, 14, 16, which is the statute applicable to 1925, the tax year, in question, because the income tax provisions of the Act took effect on January’ 1, 1925. The basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property acquired after February' *44 28, 1913, is generally the cost of such property, section 204 (a), 44 Stat. 9, 14. However, there are certain exceptions. For example, if the property was acquired after December 31, 1920, by a corporation by the issuance of stock or securities in connection with a transaction described in section 203 (b) (4), then the basis for determining the gain or loss is the same as it would be in the case of the transferor, section 204 (a) (8).

Section 203 (b) (4) is as follows: “No gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by one or more persons solely in exchange for stock or securities in such corporation, and immediately after the exchange such person or persons are in control of the corporation; but in the case of an exchange by two or more persons this paragraph shall apply only if the amount of the stock and securities received by each is substantially in proportion to his interest in the property prior to the exchange.”

“Control” means the ownership of at. least 80 per cent, of the voting stock and of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of the corporation, section 203 (i).

The pending case turns upon the proper interpretation of section 203 (b) (4), particularly the concluding provision thereof which limits its application in the case of a transfer of assets to a corporation by two or more persons in exchange for stock or securities thereof to transactions in which “the amount of the stock and securities received by each is substantially in proportion to his interest in the property prior to the exchange.”

United Carbon Company, the taxpayer, was organized under the laws of Delaware as the result of a plan tó bring together in one organization the assets of various corporations engaged in the manufacture of carbon black. Officers of three such corporations entered into negotiations with thirteen corporations and one partnership engaged- in the business. Prior to the organization of the taxpayer, offers on behalf of the incorporators for the acquisition by the taxpayer, when organized, of of the inventories and other assets of the several producers were made, the inventories to be paid for in cash, and the other assets in shares of preferred stock and voting trust certificates representing shares of common stock of the taxpayer in stated amounts. None of the producers were informed as to the price to be given fox the properties of the others. By February 17, 1925, the offers were accepted in whole or in part; on February 19, 1925, the taxpayer was organized with a total authorized capital of 100,000 shares preferred stock of the par value of $100 per share and 400,000 shafes of common stock of no par value; and on February 21, 1925, the board of directors ratified the offers. On February 23, 1925, the issuance of $2,500,000 in bonds was authorized to provide funds for the cash payments and working capital. The taxpayer then acquired from the transferors the inventories and other assets in accordance with the offers.

We are concerned only with the transfers of property to the corporation in exchange for its stock, for it is only to transfers of this kind that section 203 (b) (4) applies. Confining ourselves thereto, table No. 1, set out below, shows in the case of each transfer the cost of the property to the transferor; the value thereof at the time of the transfer in 1925; the number of shares of preferred and common stock received by the transferor in exchange for its property, and the aggregate value of the shares so received, obtained by valuing the preferred stock at its par value of $100 per share and the common stock at $26.875 per share, a figure obtained by deducting the value of all the preferred stock from the value of all the properties transferred, and dividing the difference by the number of common shares. Table No. 2 shows in the case of each transfer the percentage in value of the total property transferred; the percentage in value of the total stock received; the difference between these two percentages; the percentage of profit or loss, and the amount of profit or loss of the transferor. Looking at these figures from the standpoint of the corporation, it is noticeable that the basis for the calculation of depreciation and depletion allowances will be $7,858,863.45 if the aggregate cost of the properties to the transferors is adopted, or $9,933,204.12 if the value of all the property transferred at the time of the exchange is adopted. From the standpoint of the transferors it is noticeable that nine of the transferors made an aggregate profit of $351,228.49, while five of the transferors suffered a corresponding aggregate loss of equal amount.

*45

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

Related

A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
105 T.C. No. 14 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Kamborian v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 847 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Turner Construction Co. v. United States
364 F.2d 525 (Second Circuit, 1966)
Pedone v. United States
151 F. Supp. 288 (Court of Claims, 1957)
Holstein v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 923 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Nelson v. United States
69 F. Supp. 336 (Court of Claims, 1947)
Bodell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
154 F.2d 407 (First Circuit, 1946)
Britt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
114 F.2d 10 (Fourth Circuit, 1940)
Blair v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
91 F.2d 992 (Second Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F.2d 43, 19 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 796, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-carbon-co-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca4-1937.