Johnson v. United States, 14351.
Decision Date | 06 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 14351.,14351. |
Citation | 435 F.2d 1257 |
Parties | W. Taylor JOHNSON and Foye K. Johnson, Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stephen H. Hutzelman, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and Thomas L. Stapleton, Attys., Dept. of Justice, and Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief) for appellant.
Francis N. Crenshaw and Robert C. Nusbaum, Norfolk, Va. (Crenshaw, Ware & Johnson, and Hofheimer, Nusbaum & McPhaul, Norfolk, Va., on brief) for appellees.
Before BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and MARTIN, Chief District Judge.
Income taxes paid by W. Taylor Johnson and his wife, Foye K. Johnson — taxpayer — were recouped by a September 1969 judgment of the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Decision hinged on the appropriate tax treatment of a corporate distribution of moneys held in a depreciation account. The United States appeals, and successfully, we hold.
The facts, bared of simultaneous tax incidents, are these as taken from the Court's unquestioned findings:
The parties agree that $13,564.70 of the $169,000 distributed was a dividend of current corporate income. It was paid on a pro rata basis, and is taxable to the Johnsons as ordinary income. The issue is how the receipt of the remainder — $155,435.30 — should be assessed.
The position of the taxpayer is that this was a distribution of capital to them and that there was no gain because the sum so disbursed did not exceed the total amount paid by them for the stock. For this computation they combine the costs of their two acquisitions. They show, too, that the Government stipulates that the taxpayer intended a non-pro rata distribution.
The Government, on the other hand, insists that the acquisitions cannot be combined. Skinner v. Eaton, 45 F.2d 568, 570 (2 Cir.1930) cert. denied 283 U.S. 837, 51 S.Ct. 486, 75 L.Ed. 1449 (1931). It asserts that each acquisition must be apportioned its part of the distribution, individually. In this process, there is allotted to each the proportion of the distribution that the number of shares in that block bears to the number of shares outstanding. Thus the distribution for tax purposes would not be allocated on a non-pro rata reckoning in accordance with the stipulated intent of the taxpayer, but rather on a pro rata division. The Government...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Rules of Practice and Procedure. 5 Because Mr. Anderson owned some blocks of low basis Diamond A stock and, under Johnson v. United States, 435 F.2d 1257 (4th Cir. 1971), a portion of the distribution had to be allocated to these shares, Peat, Marwick advised Mr. Anderson he would have a sm......
-
Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Comm'r
...Taken together, these three transactions establish basis of $393.2 million in CSE. Under the principle set forth in Johnson v. United States, 435 F.2d 1257 (4th Cir. 1971), petitioner was required to apply the distribution to Paradym on a pro rata basis across each block of CSE stock. In hi......
-
Significant recent corporate developments.
...(7) See Regs. Secs. 1.367(a)-8(n)(1) and (q)(2), Example (14). (8) REG-143686-07, released on January 21, 2009. (9) Johnson, 435 F.2d 1257 (4th Cir. (10) Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.302-5(a)(1). (11) Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.302-5(a)(3)(i). (12) Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.302-5(a)(4). (13) But see Notice 2001-45,......