United States v. E. B. Peebles, Jr., and Lee Baldwin Peebles

Fifth Circuit

United States v. E. B. Peebles, Jr., and Lee Baldwin Peebles

331 F.2d 955

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 1964

Docket20254_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 955 (United States v. E. B. Peebles, Jr., and Lee Baldwin Peebles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. E. B. Peebles, Jr., and Lee Baldwin Peebles, 331 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

WISDOM, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 331 F.2d 943. The facts in this case are slightly different from the facts in Johnson, but the issue is the same. The issue is whether the lump-sum distribution the taxpayer received upon termination of an employees’ pension plan was paid to him on account of his “sepai'ation from the service” of his employer. For the reasons given in Johnson, we hold that the distribution does not qualify for capital gains treatment within the meaning of' Section 402(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The taxpayer, Peebles, was employed by Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Waterman Steamship Corporation. Although the' taxpayer was on the Ryan payroll at all relevant times, the district court found' that he was an eznployee of Waterman until the Ryan stock was sold June 14,. 1955, to F. L. Leatherbury, an individual.. The district court found that on this sale of the stock the taxpayer became an employee of Ryan, thereby terminating his employment with Waterman. Under our view of the law, we reach the same result, whether Peebles is considered as an employee of Waterman or an employee of Ryan.

The judgment below is reversed with directions that the district court enter judgment for the United States.

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

WISDOM, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 331 F.2d 943. The facts in this case are slightly different from the facts in Johnson, but the issue is the same. The issue is whether the lump-sum distribution the taxpayer received upon termination of an employees’ pension plan was paid to him on account of his “sepai'ation from the service” of his employer. For the reasons given in Johnson, we hold that the distribution does not qualify for capital gains treatment within the meaning of' Section 402(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The taxpayer, Peebles, was employed by Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Waterman Steamship Corporation. Although the' taxpayer was on the Ryan payroll at all relevant times, the district court found' that he was an eznployee of Waterman until the Ryan stock was sold June 14,. 1955, to F. L. Leatherbury, an individual.. The district court found that on this sale of the stock the taxpayer became an employee of Ryan, thereby terminating his employment with Waterman. Under our view of the law, we reach the same result, whether Peebles is considered as an employee of Waterman or an employee of Ryan.

The judgment below is reversed with directions that the district court enter judgment for the United States.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F.2d 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-e-b-peebles-jr-and-lee-baldwin-peebles-ca5-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack