Du Pont v. Deputy
Decision Date | 28 March 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6816.,6816. |
Parties | DU PONT v. DEPUTY et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Aaron Finger, of Wilmington, Del., James S. Y. Ivins, of Washington, D. C., and George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Richards, Layton & Finger, of Wilmington, Del., Ivins, Phillips, Graves & Barker, of Washington, D. C., and Pepper, Bodine, Stokes & Schoch, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Norman D. Keller, and Lester L. Gibson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and John J. Morris, Jr., U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., for appellees.
Before DAVIS, MARIS, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.
In the court below Pierre S. Du Pont brought suit against the Collector of Internal Revenue to recover taxes alleged to be illegally collected from him. Jury was waived and the case tried by the judge. By stipulation it was agreed plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of $54,439.52 on one of the issues involved and to a judgment of $172,351.64 with interest (which would include the $54,439.52) if plaintiff was successful in maintaining his claim therefor. The court entered judgment for plaintiff for $54,439.52 with interest and held that "judgment for the plaintiff in any larger sum will be refused." Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal.
After due consideration, we are of opinion that in the latter respect the court erred and the record should be remanded with instructions to amend its judgment by making it for $172,351.64 with interest from September 24, 1935, instead of for $54,439.52 allowed. The reasons therefor we now state.
The income taxes involved are for the year 1931 as found by the court:
It appears that in 1919 the plaintiff borrowed from the Christiana Company, with a ten year maturity provision dating from December 23, 1919, nine thousand shares of the stock of the du Pont Company. The purpose of the taxpayer in so borrowing was found by the trial court as follows:
The court further found: "The agreement referred to was not entered into by the plaintiff with the Christiana Company with the intention or purpose of making a profit thereby."
When the ten year maturity approached, the court found
As noted above, du Pont's loan contract with the Christiana Company expired by its own terms December 23, 1929, a time, as the court takes judicial notice, of grave financial panicky conditions and at which du Pont had not the stock to return.
In order to meet his contract at maturity du Pont, on October 25, 1929, entered into a written contract with the Delaware Realty & Investment Company, of which he was not a shareholder, and which, as found by the court, "was not entered into * * * with the intention or purpose of making a profit thereby", whereby that company agreed to loan to du Pont the shares of the du Pont Company required by him to return to the Christiana Company as provided in the then maturing contract of stock loan made in 1919.
The contract with Delaware further provided that within ten years from October 25, 1929, du Pont would return to the lending company the du Pont Company stock so borrowed and pending such return he would pay to the lending company an amount in money equivalent to all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ditunno v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...different judicial interpretations of the words “carrying on a trade or business” existed.10 The Third Circuit, in Du Pont v. Deputy, 103 F.2d 257 (3d Cir. 1939), had looked to the dictionary for a definition and concluded that “business” meant “that which busies or engages time, attention ......
- Deputy v. Du Pont
-
Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 10 8212 13, 1941
...2 Cir., 113 F.2d 718. 3 39 B.T.A. 1005. 4 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 795. 5 Kales v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 101 F.2d 35, 122 A.L.R. 211; DuPont v. Deputy, 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 257. 6 38 Stat. 167, Section II B. 7 40 Stat. 1066, Sec. 214(a)(1). 8 Cf. Helvering v. New York Trust Co., 292 U.S. 455, 467, 468,......
-
Frick v. Commissioner
...Dec. 39,888, 80 T.C. 362 (1983). Petitioner's reliance on the decision of the Third Circuit in duPont v. Deputy 39-1 USTC ¶ 9426, 103 F. 2d 257 (3rd Cir. 1939) is misplaced. In that case the Circuit Court adopted a dictionary definition of "business" and concluded that it meant "that which ......