United States v. National Sugar Refining Co.

113 F. Supp. 157, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 177, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2537
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 30, 1953
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 113 F. Supp. 157 (United States v. National Sugar Refining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. National Sugar Refining Co., 113 F. Supp. 157, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 177, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2537 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).

Opinion

LEIBELL, District Judge.

This is an action under section 1802(a) 1 of the Internal Revenue Code to- collect a stamp tax on shares allegedly “issued in a recapitalization” of the defendant on December 31, 1947. The action was commenced December 29, 1952. The facts are not in dispute. Defendant moved for a summary judgment and the plaintiff has made a cross motion for the same relief.

The secretary of the defendant, a New Jersey corporation, has made affidavit as follows:

“2. On November 20, 1947, at a special meeting of defendant’s Board of Directors regularly convened and held, a quorum then being present, the following resolution was adopted:
“ ‘Resolved that, upon the liquidation of Pennsylvania Sugar Company, the amount of $9,000,000 of the surplus of this Company [The National Sugar Refining Company] consisting of $2,632,529.46 from capital surplus and $6,367,470.54 from earned surplus, be transferred to capital account and that the surplus so transferred, namely $15 for each issued share, including treasury shares, of the capital stock without par value of this Company, be treated as capital in respect of such shares of capital stock making the total amount of such capital $40 per share; * * ’ The above-quoted resolution has been at all times since November 20, 1947, and now is, in full force and effect.
“3. On December 31, 1947, Pennsylvania was liquidated and all of its assets distributed to defendant as a creditor and its sole stockholder.
“4. During the period from 1929 to date, the issued and outstanding capital stock of defendant has consisted of 600,000 shares of no par value. On and prior to December 31, 1947, defendant’s capital was $15,000,000, or $25 for each of said 600,000 shares.
“5. On December 31, 1947, defendant, pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, transferred $9,000,000 to its capital account from its capital surplus and earned surplus accounts, making the *159 amount of its capital $24,000,000, or $40 for each of said 600,000 shares.
“6. Defendant has not issued any shares or certificates of stock in respect of the aforesaid transfer of $9,000,000 to capital account.
“7. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the form of certificate evidencing shares of defendant’s capital stock in use prior to, and at all times subsequent to, the aforesaid transfer of $9,000,000 to capital account. No change or modification whatsoever was made in such form of certificate as the result of such increase.”

The form of stock certificate certifies that (blank) “is the owner of (one hundred) fully paid and nonassessable shares without nominal or par value of the Capital Stock of The National Sugar Refining Company, transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar”. The certificate bore a number and the signatures of its president and treasurer.

The Comptroller of The National Sugar Refining Company has made affidavit as follows:

“2. During the period from 1929 to date, the issued and outstanding capital stock of defendant has consisted of 600,000 shares of no par value. On and prior to December 31, 1947, defendant’s capital was $15,000,000, or $25 for each of said 600,000 shares.
“3. On December 31, 1947, defendant increased the amount of its capital account from $15,000,000 to $24,000,-000 by transferring thereto from its capital surplus and earned surpltis accounts $9,000,000, of which $2,632,-529.46 was transferred from its capital surplus account and $6,367,470.54 was transferred from its earned surplus account.
“4. The aforesaid increase in defendant’s capital account was accomplished pursuant to authorization of defendant’s Board of Directors without any issue of additional shares of stock or certificates therefor and by means of the following bookkeeping entries dated December 31, 1947, made on defendant’s journal:
“ ‘JV-20-0 — Capital Surplus of Subsidiary (Pennsylvania Sugar Company) received in Liquidation $2,632,529.46
Capital Stock $2,632,529.46
To transfer the former to Capitol Stock pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors adopted on November 20, 1947.
JV-24-0 — Earned Surplus — Unappropriated $6,367,470.54
Capital Stock $6,367,470.54
To transfer to the latter from earned surplus an amount required to increase (after transfer from Capital surplus of $2,632,529.46) capital stock by $9,000,000. The capital stock after this transfer will be stated at 600,000 shares at a stated value of $40. per share of $24,000,000. This transfer was authorized by the Board of Directors in a resolution adopted on November 20, 1947.’
“5. Defendant did not affix any Federal documentary tax stamps to its stock books or corresponding records, nor did defendant pay any documentary stamps taxes in respect of the aforesaid increase in the amount of its capital account.”

These statements of defendant’s officers are undisputed. Indeed, plaintiff’s notice of motion is based upon the plead *160 ings “and the papers submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment”. This is a proper case for summary judgment under rule 56(c) F.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. There is “no genuine issue as to any material fact”. Motions for summary judgment are not uncommon in cases dealing with taxation.

The particular part of section 1802(a) involved in this case is the second proviso in relation to certificates or shares “issued in a recapitalization”. That proviso was added August 8, 1947. It was remedial, intended to remove certain inequities. House Report No. 969, July 17, 1947 (U.S.Code Cong.Service; 80th Congress, First Session, 1947, p. 1683) refers to this situation, as follows:

“At present, in some cases, the tax imposed under section 1802 on capital stock issues, once levied, must be reimposed upon part of a new capital stock issue.”

The House Bill had the support of the Treasury Department, whose Acting Secretary wrote the Chairman of the House Committee on July 10, 1947, as follows:

“The bill proposes to amend section 1802(a), supra, relating to the stamp tax on issues of capital stock and similar interests, so as to limit the tax on the issuance of certificates (or shares, where no certificates are issued), in those cases where new and additional capital is introduced to the capital stock accounts, to an amount calculated on the basis of the earned surplus or other capital which for the first time is dedicated as capital. The tax imposed by this section of the Internal Revenue Code is laid on each original issue of shares or certificates of stock.

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

Related

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. United States
266 F. Supp. 228 (N.D. Indiana, 1966)
United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co.
356 U.S. 227 (Supreme Court, 1958)
Kentile, Inc. v. United States
155 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. New York, 1957)
Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. McMahon
156 F. Supp. 275 (S.D. New York, 1957)
The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States
236 F.2d 889 (Second Circuit, 1956)
F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States
130 F. Supp. 322 (E.D. New York, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 F. Supp. 157, 44 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 177, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-national-sugar-refining-co-nysd-1953.