S. Naitove & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Decision Date | 06 May 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 4768.,4768. |
Parties | S. NAITOVE & CO., Inc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
R. Kemp Slaughter and Hugh C. Bickford, both of Washington, D. C., and Robert E. Coulson, of New York City, for appellant.
Mabel W. Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, L. W. Scott, Sewall Key, and Millar E. McGilchrist, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Appellant, a New York corporation engaged in buying and selling woolen, silk, and cotton goods, had five employees who constituted the entire buying and selling staff of the business. These employees, dissatisfied with their compensation, threatened to go into business for themselves. To retain them, an agreement was entered into by the appellant and the employees under which they were to participate in the profits of the business. The agreement was expressed in a resolution passed by the board of directors on February 10, 1919, as follows:
Appellant kept its books on an accrual basis of accounting, and, in closing the books of December 31, 1919, the entry as to these five employees was computed as follows:
Charge, selling and commission ......... $116,548 44 =========== Credit Moe Naitove ..................... $ 29,137 11 Nat Naitove ..................... 29,137 11 Jack Naitove .................... 29,137 11 George Naitove .................. 14,568 56 Moe Turnan ...................... 14,568 55 additional compensation as per agreement
The resolution was continued in force during the year 1920 on the same basis as in the year 1919, but in 1920 appellant suffered a loss of approximately $90,000; and pursuant to the resolution the books as of December 31, 1920, showed as to the participation by the five employees the following accruals:
Charge Moe Naitove 10% .................. $10,441 42 Nat Naitove 10% ......................... 10,441 42 Jack Naitove 10% ........................ 10,441 42 George Naitove 5% ....................... 5,220 71 Moe Turnan 5% ........................... 5,220 71 __________ Credit surplus account ............... $41,765 68
Appellant in its return for the year 1919 deducted as expenses from its income the sum of $116,548.44, which represented the portion of the earnings which accrued to said employees pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement set forth in the resolution by the board of directors. The Commissioner disallowed this deduction, and on August 19, 1925, notified appellant corporation of a deficiency in its income and profits taxes for the calendar year 1919 of $59,049.33.
From the ruling of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining the Commissioner, the case comes here on appeal.
The tax in controversy was imposed under the provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stats. 1057.
The accounts under the agreement were kept on the books of appellant on an accrual basis, under which system these items of expense could not accrue until all the events occurred from which liability could be determined and become fixed. In pursuance of this system appellant credited on its books as of December 31, 1919, to its five employees $116,548.44. This represented the portion of appellant's earnings for that year to which the employees would be entitled, in the event the credits equaled or exceeded that amount during the remaining four years. But in 1920 the credits to the employees dropped to $41,765.68, thus demonstrating the total impossibility of determining until the expiration of the five-year period the amount of expense appellant would be entitled to deduct for compensation paid these employees.
Construing the provisions of the income tax law here involved, we are of the opinion that under the accrual system of accounting income may be said to be accrued when it is definitely received, and that likewise liabilities or expenses will be considered to have accrued only when the events...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fourth Ave. Amusement Co. v. Glenn
...taxpayer to pay occurs within that year. Block & Kohner Mercantile Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 37 F.2d 877; S. Naitove & Company v. Commissioner, 59 App.D.C. 53, 32 F.2d 949, 952; Pierce Estates v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 475, 477; Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. ......
-
Milton Bradley Co. v. United States
...merely contingent liabilities. Eckert v. Burnet, 1931, 283 U.S. 140, 51 S.Ct. 373, 75 L.Ed. 911; S. Naitove & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1929, 59 App.D.C. 53, 32 F.2d 949; Wolff v. Commissioner, supra. Where the liability to pay is not absolute, the existence of a deductible d......
-
Connolly Tool & Engineering Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4855-62.
...United States v. Anderson 1 USTC ¶ 155, 269 U. S. 422; S. Naitove & Co., Inc. Dec. 2899, 8 B. T. A. 589, affd. 1 USTC ¶ 398 32 F. 2d 949 (C. A. D. C.), certiorari denied 280 U. S. 582; Income Tax Regs., sec. 1.461-1. There is no question that the amount of the bonus to petitioner's presiden......
-
Willoughby Camera Stores v. Com'r of Internal Rev.
...note 64. 3 Because there was here an enforceable obligation in the amount accrued, the case is different from S. Naitove & Co. v. Commissioner, 59 App.D.C. 53, 32 F.2d 949, certiorari denied 280 U.S. 582, 50 S.Ct. 34, 74 L.Ed. 632. Cf. Oxford Institute v. Commissioner, 33 B.T.A. 1136; Roger......