Ward M. Canaday, Inc. v. Commissioner

29 B.T.A. 355, 1933 BTA LEXIS 954
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedNovember 15, 1933
DocketDocket No. 58632.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 B.T.A. 355 (Ward M. Canaday, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward M. Canaday, Inc. v. Commissioner, 29 B.T.A. 355, 1933 BTA LEXIS 954 (bta 1933).

Opinion

OPINION.

Murdock :

The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $63,061.16 for the year 1928. The petitioner assigns as error the action of the Commissioner in holding (1) that the distribution of stocks and securities received by the petitioner as a stockholder of the Dealers Finance Co., pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors of the latter corporation passed on December 26, 1928, declaring as a dividend its earúed surplus, consisting of stocks and securities in excess of a sum equal to $125,000, the par value of its outstanding capital stock, constituted a liquidating dividend, and (2) that the sum of $25,000 received by the petitioner from the Dealers Finance Co. in cancellation of 5,000 shares of stock in the latter corporation theretofore issued to the petitioner as a stock dividend was a liquidating dividend instead of a taxable dividend within ‘the meaning of section 115 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1928.

At the hearing the respondent made claim for an increased deficiency on the ground that he had failed to include $3,622.11 as a liquidating dividend to the petitioner on its Dealers Finance Co. stock, being $2,997.68 received as its pro rata part of certain reserve funds of the Dealers Finance Co. and $624.43 received as a refund of income taxes of the Dealers Finance Co. for 1928.

The parties filed a stipulation which included a great many exhibits. We think, and the parties seem to agree, that a full statement [357]*357of all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the stipulation and the accompanying exhibits is not necessary to a decision of the case.

The petitioner is a Delaware corporation. All of its stock was owned by Ward M. Canaday and John N. Willys in equal proportions at all times material hereto. The petitioner owned all of the issued and outstanding Class A stock of the Dealers Finance Co. from May 1921 until and including the twenty-sixth day of December 1928. It originally subscribed and paid $100,000 for 20,000 shares of this Class A stock. On December 3, 1926, the Dealers Finance Co. declared a 25 percent stock dividend, as a result of which the petitioner received 5,000 additional shares of Class A stock, each of the par value of $5.

The Dealers Finance Co. was incorporated on February 19, 1925, under the laws of the State of Delaware. The business of the Dealers Finance Co. from the time it began operations, April 1, 1925, until February 29, 1928, consisted of financing retail time sales of automobiles manufactured by Willys-Overland Co. and sold by Willys-Overland Co. dealers, i.e., the purchase of notes secured by chattel mortgages or conditional sales contracts, or both, representing balances of the selling prices of automobiles manufactured by the Willys-Overland Co. and also of certain used automobiles sold by dealers of the Willys-Overland Co.

The Class B stock of the Dealers Finance Co. originally had a total par value of $34,000, but was increased to $42,500 on December 3,1926, by a 25 percent stock dividend.

The Class B stockholders of the Dealers Finance Co. consisted solely of officers and directors of the Willys-Overland Co. and their wives, of officers of the United States Advertising Corporation, and of employees of these two corporations.

The directors of the Dealers Finance Co. during all times material hereto were also either directors of the Willys-Overland Co. or officers of the United States Advertising Corporation. The latter corporation acted as advertising agency for the former. The petitioner owned all of the common stock of the United States Advertising Corporation.

On March 5, 1928, the Commercial Credit Co. of Baltimore and the Dealers Finance Co. entered into an agreement to “ consolidate.” Under the agreement the Dealers Finance Co. transferred all of its property and assets to the Commercial Credit Co. in exchange for stock and notes of the Commercial Credit Co. and the assumption by the Commercial Credit Co. of all of the liabilities of the Dealers Finance Co. The Dealers Finance Co. received from the Commercial Credit Co. stock and notes having a total fair market value of [358]*358$600,000. The Dealers Finance Co. reported no gain in its income tax return for 1928 upon the transfer of its assets and paid no tax thereon.

The Class B shareholders of the Dealers Finance Co. surrendered their stock on April 18, 1928, in exchange for their proportionate part of the securities owned by the Dealers Finance Co. During 1928 the Dealers Finance Co. sold some of the notes and stock received from the Commercial Credit Co. and reported a profit of $203,645.58 upon the sale of these items. It made no other purchases or sales of securities during the period from March 1 to December 26, 1928, and had no other income except interest on the notes and dividends on the stock acquired in the transaction above mentioned.

On March 8, 1928, Willys-Overland entered into an agreement with the Commercial Credit Co., whereby the Commercial Credit Co. agreed to finance both new and used cars for Willys-Overland dealers, both wholesale and retail, for a period of three years. Willys-Over-land agreed to deal and do business exclusively with the Commercial Credit Co., to reconunend exclusively to its distributors and dealers the financing facilities provided by the Commercial Credit Co., to use its best efforts to discourage the use by its distributors and dealers of other financing facilities, and that during the life of the contract “ neither it nor any of its subsidiary companies now existing or hereafter to be organized, shall engage in the business of the financing of retail sale of automobiles; nor shall it, nor any of its subsidiary companies, become associated with or identified with or aid directly or indirectly any corporation, common law trust, firm or other association than Commercial Credit, and its Affiliated Companies in financing the retail sale of automobiles during the life of this contract.”

The financial condition of the Dealers Finance Co. at the close of business December 25,1928, and at the beginning of business December 26, 1928, as shown by the books of the company was as follows:

Assets :
J. H. Gerkins — trustee account_$7,143.18
Less: Delaware filing fee not entered_ 2. 00
- $7,143.18
Accounts receivable — securities ledger_ 390,247. 28
Securities owned—
6 Shares Com. Credit 6½ Preferred_ 282. 84
4,644 Shares Com. Credit Common_ 55, 825. 74
Accounts receivable — Com. Credit Co_ 1859.49
Total assets_ 454, 356. 53
[359]*359Liabilities :
Reserve for Federal Taxes—
Additional Assessment 1927_ $859. 00
Year 1928_ 24, 994.29
Interest on 1927 additional tax_ 42. 98
Contingent reserve-$13, 364. 37
Less: charge for interest on 1927—
Additional tax assessment_$42.98
Charge for Delaware filing fee not
entered- 2. 00
•-- 44.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 B.T.A. 355, 1933 BTA LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-m-canaday-inc-v-commissioner-bta-1933.