Westover Co. v. Smyth

99 F. Supp. 488, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1312, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4121
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedAugust 31, 1951
DocketNo. 29552
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 F. Supp. 488 (Westover Co. v. Smyth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Westover Co. v. Smyth, 99 F. Supp. 488, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1312, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4121 (N.D. Cal. 1951).

Opinion

MURPHY, District Judge.

The above entitled cause haying been duly tried before the Honorable Edward P. Murphy, District Judge, the Court now makes the following

Findings of Fact

1. The Court adopts by reference the two Stipulations of Facts filed herein and all of the exhibits attached thereto or adopted by reference therein.

.2. Judson Pacific Company was incorporated in 1928 under the laws of the State of Nevada. On January 27, 1947, Judson Pacific Company was liquidated and dissolved and all of its assets were distributed to its then sole stockholder* Pacific Rolling Mill Company.

3. Pacific Rolling Mill Company was a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Nevada. In April of 1949 Pacific Rolling Mill Company was merged into Westover Co., the plaintiff herein, in a statutory merger under the statutes of the States of Nevada and California.

4. Plaintiff Westover Co. is now and has at all times herein material been a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

5. Defendant James G. Smyth is now and at all times since May 14, 1945, has been the duly, commissioned, qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of California.

6. Judson Pacific Company kept its ¡books and filed its federal tax returns on the accrual basis and on the basis of a fiscal year ending on January 31 of each calendar year. Any reference herein to a particular fiscal year refers to the fiscal year which ended on January 31 of th.e respective calendar year referred to.

7. Judson Pacific Company filed income and declared value excess profits tax returns and excess profits tax returns for fiscal 1944, fiscal 1945, and fiscal 1946, and filed an income tax return for fiscal 1947, and it made timely payment of the taxes • shown to be due by said returns.

On June 25, 1946, Judson Pacific Company filed with defendant a claim for refund of excess profits taxes for fiscal 1944, based on a carry-back of an unused excess profits credit from fiscal 1946. Said refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as part of re-computations of income and excess profits taxes set forth in a letter from F. M. Harless, Internal Revenue Agent in Charge, to Judson Pacific Company, dated May 12, 1947. Credit for the net refund allowed was made against additional taxes for the fiscal years 1944, 1945, and 1946, which taxes were paid by Pacific Rolling Mill Company to defendant on April 28, 1948, pursuant to assessments against it as transferee of Judson Pacific Company.

[490]*490On June 15, 1947, Judson Pacific Company filed with defendant an application for tentative carry-back adjustment for fiscal

1945 based on a carry-back of unused excess profits credit from fiscal 1947. Pursuant to said application, a tentative refund was received by Judson Pacific Company oñ October 27, 1947.

On December 28, 1948, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue notified Pacific Rolling Mill Company of the proposed assessment against it, as transferee of the assets of Judson Pacific Company, of deficiencies based on the disallowance of said carry-backs of unused excess profits credits from fiscal 1947 to fiscal 1945 and from fiscal 1946 to fiscal 1944.

On June 14, 1949, pursuant to said notice of proposed deficiencies, defendant mailed to plaintiff, addressed as Pacific Rolling Mill Company, demands for the payment of additional excess profits taxes of Judson Pacific Company for fiscal 1944 and fiscal 1945. Said demands required payment after credit for related over-assessments of income taxes in the net amount, including interest, of Fifty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-six Dollars and Seventy-three Cents for fiscal 1944, and in the net amount, including interest, of Seventeen Thousand Fourteen Dollars and Thirty-nine Cents for fiscal 1945.

Pursuant to said demands of defendant, plaintiff Westover Co., on June 23, 1949, paid to defendant said sums of Fifty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-six Dollars and Seventy-three Cents and Seventeen Thousand Fourteen Dollars and Thirty-nine Cents. Thereafter plaintiff received refunds representing interest on said related over-assessments of income taxes in the amounts of Four Thousand Fourteen Dollars and Sixty-one Cents, for fiscal 1944, and One Thousand Two Hundred Forty-five Dollars añd Forty-seven Cents for fiscal 1945.

On August 23, .1949, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, plaintiff Westover Co. duly filed with defendant verified claims on Form 843 for refund of said sum of Fifty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-six Dollars and Seventy-three Cents and said' sum of Seventeen Thousand Fourteen Dollars and Thirty-nine Cents. In said claims for refund plaintiff set forth the grounds upon which it relied in support thereof,. to wit, that Judson Pacific Company was entitled to carry-backs of unused excess profits credits from fiscal 1946 to fiscal 1944 and from fiscal 1947 to fiscal 1945. Said claims for refund were never allowed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and more than six months elapsed between the date of their filing and the filing of the Complaint herein.

8. Prior to January, 1945, Judson Pacific Company had been engaged in the steel fabricating business and also held investments in securities. As of January 31, 1945, Judson Pacific Company sold the assets of its steel fabricating business to Judson Pacific-Murphy Corporation under an agreement whereby Judson Pacific-Murphy Corporation assumed all liabilities as of January 31, 1945, except for taxes resulting from the consummation of the sale. Judson Pacific Company retained cash and securities in the amount of approximately $410,000. ,,

9. At the time of the sale by Judson Pacific Company of the assets of its steel fabricating business in January of 1945, it was intended and contemplated that its corporate existence should be continued. This retention of the corporate form was not for the purpose of possible savings of excess profits taxes and no consideration was given to any possibility of carry backs of unused excess profits credits.

10. Thereafter, during the spring and summer of 1945, Judson Pacific Company purchased or redeemed approximately 49% of its capital stock, such stock being all of its stock except that owned by Pacific Rolling Mill Company.

11. During the period from January 31, 1945, to January 27, 1947, approximately 80%’ of the stock of Pacific Rolling Mill Company' was owned by Westover Co. At that time all of the stock of West-over Co. was owned by E. B. Noble and his immediate family.

[491]*49112. In April of 1945, after the sale of t'he steel fabricating business to Judson Pacific-Murphy Corporation 'but pursuant to negotiations started before such sale, Judson Pacific Company joined with H. Moffat Co. in the purchase of a 7,740 acre cattle ranch (known as the U-3 Ranch) in Stanislaus County, California. Until January, 1947, Judson Pacific Company and H. Moffat Co., as equal joint venturers, engaged in the purchase and sale of livestock and the feeding of said live stock on such ranch. This activity was extremely profitable and has been continued by Judson Pacific Company’s successors.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 F. Supp. 488, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1312, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westover-co-v-smyth-cand-1951.