Younker Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 333, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2912
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedSeptember 27, 1927
DocketDocket No. 5522.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 B.T.A. 333 (Younker Bros., 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
Younker Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, 8 B.T.A. 333, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2912 (bta 1927).

Opinion

[355]*355OPINION.

Littleton:

If Commissioner David H. Blair had authority to make a determination in respect of the tax of the petitioner for the periods in question and was correct in determining that the taxpayer, a New York corporation, acquired the business and assets of Younker Brothers, Inc., an Iowa corporation, through a change in ownership subsequent to March 3, 1917, and that the provisions of section 208 of the Revenue Act of 1917 and section 331 of the Revenue Act of 1918 were applicable in the determination of the invested capital, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the claims advanced by the petitioner as to the actual value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired by it in 1917. We think little discussion is necessary to show that in the circumstances disclosed by the facts in this proceeding Commissioner Blair was not precluded from considering the matter of the tax liability of petitioner and its affiliated corporations [356]*356for the periods involved. The petitioner’s objection to the Commissioner’s authority to consider the matter of its tax liability can relate only to the period March 19, 1917, to December 81, 1917, and for the month of January, 1918, since this is the only period in respect of which the petitioner claims the present Commissioner’s predecessor made a determination. The petitioner’s objection is predicated entirely upon the letter to Younker Brothers, Inc., dated December 21, 1920, at which time William M. Williams was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. There is no evidence in the record other than the income-tax return, Form 1031, and the excess-profits-tax return, Form 1103, filed by Younker Brothers, Inc., on or about March 27, 1918, as to what facts or information were before the then Commissioner for forming the basis of his conclusion indicated in the letter of December 21, 1920.

There has been no showing that the true facts -and circumstances relating to the reorganization of the Iowa corporation and the change of ownership of the property and business of that corporation to the new corporation upon which Commissioner Blair acted were known to Commissioner Williams and upon this failure of evidence alone we would have to decide that Commissioner Blair was not precluded by law in making a determination in respect of the tax liability. In addition to this, there is no suggestion that the facts relating to the relationship of the five other corporations with Younker Brothers, Inc., were known to the Commissioner’s predecessor in office, and the statements contained in the income and profits-tax returns filed by the petitioner do not evidence this fact. These returns stated that ./the New York corporation was incorporated and organized on January 15, 1917, that the good will claimed by it was acquired for stock on January 15, 1917, that the business was not reorganized or sold, or its ownership changed after March 3, 1917, and that the petitioner was not affiliated with any other corporation. In answer to question 3 on page 4 of the original excess-profits-tax return, the petitioner, in answer to the question “ Under the laws of what State or country [it was incorporated] ?” answered “ New York, Charter filed March 19, 1917,” and it nqw claims that this statement upon the return precludes the present Commissioner from modifying the determination of his predecessor. Even if there might be a case where a Commissioner might be precluded from modifying his predecessor’s determination, or determining a further additional tax within the statutory periods of limitation for years for which the predecessor in office had audited returns, we think the facts in this record are far from presenting such a case. Cf. Dallas Brass & Copper Co., 3 B. T. A. 856; Warner Sugar Refining Co., 4 B. T. A. 5; Boyne City Lumber Co., 7 B. T. A. 36. Compare also, Carter Music Co. v. Bass, 20 Fed. (2d) 390, wherein the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, [357]*357held in opinion rendered June 15, 1927, in an action by the taxpayer to recover taxes paid in respect of which the taxpayer and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had entered into an agreement in respect of the tax liability under and pursuant to section 1312 of the Revenue Act of 1921, which agreement was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, that the taxpayer was, notwithstanding such agreement, entitled to recover a portion of the tax paid. We have held that the Commissioner is not precluded from reviewing and reversing his predecessor’s decision as to a question of law. Yokohama Ki-Ito Kwaisha, Ltd., 5 B. T. A. 1248. And that a predecessor’s determination of a question of fact is not binding upon his successor for a following year. Boyne City Lumber Co., 7 B. T. A. 36. There has been no showing in this proceeding that Commissioner Blair’s determination which is complained of was not the result of a reopening of the case by Commissioner Williams after his letter of December 21,1920. See Nazareth Cement Co., 4 B. T. A. 1121. We are of the opinion that the claim that Commissioner Blair was without legal authority to make a determination in respect of the tax liability of petitioner and its affiliated corporations for the taxable periods involved is without merit.

We think the facts hereinbefore set forth conclusively show that the Commissioner was correct in holding that the provisions of section 208 of the Revenue Act of 1917 and section 331 of the Revenue Act of 1918 were applicable in the determination of the invested capital of the petitioner for the taxable periods involved. It is contended upon behalf of the petitioner that for all intents and purposes the New York corporation acquired the business and property of the Iowa corporation on January 15, 1917, and that since this was prior to March 3, 1917, the provisions of the above-mentioned sections do not apply; that if it should be held that the business and properties were acquired by the New York corporation subsequent to March 3, 1917, it acquired such assets from an association composed of the former stockholders and employees of the Iowa corporation, which association was the result of a reorganization on January 15, 1917, and the actual value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired by this association from the Iowa corporation on January 15, 1917, should be used in determining this petitioner’s invested capital. Section 208 of the Revenue Act of 1917 provides — .

That in case of the reorganization, consolidation or change of ownership of a trade or business after March third, nineteen hundred and seventeen, if an interest or control in such trade or business of fifty per centum or more remains in control of the same persons, corporations, associations, partnerships, or any of them, then in ascertaining the invested capital of the trade or business no asset transferred or received from the prior trade or business shall be allowed a greater value than would have been allowed under this title in computing the invested capital of such prior trade or business if such asset had not been so [358]*358transferred or received, unless such asset was paid for specifically as such, in cash or tangible property, and then not to exceed the actual cash or actual cash value of the tangible property paid therefor at the time of such payment

Section 331 of the Revenue Act of 1918 provides—

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

Related

Estate of Helliwell v. Commissioner
77 T.C. 964 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Cefalu v. Commissioner
1958 T.C. Memo. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 B.T.A. 333, 1927 BTA LEXIS 2912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/younker-bros-inc-v-commissioner-bta-1927.