Williams v. Commissioner

10 T.C.M. 633, 1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 169
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 16 T.C. 893
United States Tax Court·Decided June 29, 1951·No. Docket No. 25534.·Unpublished

Opinion

Norman R. Williams v. Commissioner.
Williams v. Commissioner
Docket No. 25534.
United States Tax Court
1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 169; 10 T.C.M. (CCH) 633; T.C.M. (RIA) 51207;
June 29, 1951

*169 Petitioner, a business broker, received commissions for services rendered in sale of a drop forge plant. The parties disagreed as to when these services began and when they were completed. Held, the services began April 7, 1943, and were completed in July, 1946. Since they covered a period of more than 36 months, respondent erred in refusing to permit the computation of tax on income from such services under section 107 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

*170 James H. Heffern, Esq., 1300 Genesee Bldg., Buffalo 2, N. Y., for the petitioner. Michael Waris, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.

RICE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The Commissioner determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the calendar year 1946 in the amount of $2,807.12. The sole issue is whether petitioner was correct in treating commissions which he received during 1946 for the sale of a business as taxable under section 107 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner is an individual residing in Hamilton, New York. His income tax return for 1946 was filed with the collector of internal revenue for the twenty-first district of New York. Petitioner is a business or industrial broker, his work primarily consisting of acting for clients who wish to sell or buy businesses. He deals either through brokers or the principals themselves and, in most instances, the work carried on is confidential.

In 1942 petitioner became aware that Globe Forge, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Globe) was being offered for sale. By letter dated October 14, 1942, he relayed the information to Harry Barrand, a financial*171 consultant, who had requested petitioner to find a forge plant for him. On October 23, 1942, he learned through Eagan Real Estate, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Eagan), the broker authorized to sell the property, that an option running until November 30, had been given on a drop forge company (which petitioner knew to be Globe) and that it seemed as if a sale would be realized. Petitioner kept in mind the possible availability of Globe but did nothing further about the sale of any interest until April 7, 1943. On that date petitioner met Dr. Stanley Woodward, also a business broker, in New York City, and learned that the latter was interested in locating a drop forge company which was for sale. Petitioner contacted a representative of Eagan and they met with Woodward to discuss possibilities of a sale of Globe interests.

Petitioner began to actively promote the sale of Globe during 1943 working with Woodward in New York, Eagan in Syracuse, and the officers and directors of Globe. In 1944, when negotiations did not seem to be having any success, petitioner contacted E. R. Bishop, president and controlling stockholder of Globe, and made a verbal agreement whereby petitioner would*172 directly act as agent for sale of Bishop's interest in Globe. This agreement was confirmed by letter from petitioner to Bishop on July 24, 1944. Eagan dropped out of the picture but Woodward still continued to represent the buyers.

This agreement between petitioner and Bishop was superseded by an option on October 29, 1945, and during the latter part of 1945 petitioner also received options from most other stockholders of Globe to sell their stock in the company. By that time petitioner had options to sell 2720 shares of common and 990 shares of preferred Globe stock out of a total capitalization of 3,000 shares of common and 1,000 shares of preferred stock.

Beginning in 1944 negotiations were held with Barium Steel Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Barium) for purchase of the Globe interests, and on November 27, 1945, a written contract was entered into between petitioner, Woodward, and Barium for the purchase of such interests. This contract provided as follows:

* * *

"1. Sellers [petitioner and Woodward] hereby agree to sell to Barium 990 shares of Preferred Stock and 2710 shares of Common Stock presently owned or controlled by them for a total price of $435,305, *173 and Barium agrees to purchase said shares upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

"2. Sellers agree to cause to be transferred to Barium 10 shares of the Preferred and 290 shares of the Common Stock of the Company at a total price not to exceed $54,050. Delivery of said shares is to be made by Sellers to Lincoln National Bank of Syracuse not more than thirty (30) days after the date of the closing. Payment of said amount shall be made by Barium as follows:

(a) Upon delivery of the shares, Barium shall pay to Sellers in cash or certified check the amount of the actual cost to them of said shares of stock in an amount up to but not in excess of $30,000;

(b) The balance thereof shall be made by delivery of shares of the Common Stock, $1.00 par value, of Barium (now in the Treasury of Barium), which shall be valued at the then market price as determined by the last quotation for the stock that day on the New York Curb Exchange, and the remainder, if any, shall be paid in cash in twelve (12) equal monthly installments, commencing on the 1st day of the month following delivery of said shares, and thereafter on the 1st day of each succeeding month.

(c) In the event that*174 Barium, after the delivery of the 990 shares of Preferred Stock and 2710 shares of Common stock, may elect to accept less than 100% of the stock of the Company as contracted for hereunder, payments of the amounts set forth in this paragraph pro rated in accordance with the number of shares delivered will be made at such time."

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

Williams v. Commissioner, 10 T.C.M. 633, 1951 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 169 (tax 1951).

10 T.C.M. 633 (Williams v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Myers v. Commissioner
11 T.C. 447 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Lum v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 375 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)