Berthold v. CIR, 18289.
Decision Date | 26 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 18289.,18289. |
Citation | 404 F.2d 119 |
Parties | Paul W. BERTHOLD and Dorothy Berthold, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul A. Weick, Akron, Ohio, for petitioners.
Bennet N. Hollander, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent; Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, William A. Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before O'SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court adverse to the taxpayers. Petitioners are husband and wife who filed joint tax returns for the years 1957, 1958, and 1959 wherein this dispute arose. During all the applicable times Paul Berthold was owner and in sole control of two corporations — the Berthold Electric Company1 and the Walberton Company.
The tax dispute pertains to the handling of $54,498.18 which was paid out of Berthold Electric Company funds for the construction of a building on land owned by Berthold. The building and land were transferred by him to the Walberton Company in 1960. Walberton then leased the building to Berthold Electric Company. No essential primary facts are in dispute, and most were stipulated — including those which follow:
Taxpayers treated the building funds as loans by the Berthold Electric Company to Paul Berthold. In this regard they relied primarily upon the facts set forth above, plus an entry in the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of Berthold Electric, dated October 15, 1957, as follows:
"A meeting of Directors of the Berthold Electric Company was held with the following present: —
Paul W. Berthold President Dorothy J. Berthold Vice President Adeline Berthold Secretary-Treasurer.
Taxpayers also point to the fact that during most of the years about which testimony was taken, Berthold advanced substantial sums to the Berthold Electric Company.
The Commissioner redetermined the taxes of taxpayers for 1957, 1958 and 1959, treating the building fund items as dividends to Berthold or as capital gain.2 The taxpayers did not (and do not) dispute the Commissioner's computations, but for the reasons stated above, do dispute the added income taxes as determined by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tax Court.
The Tax Court did not find any facts contrary to petitioners' contentions, but did infer from them and other undisputed facts a different conclusion — namely, that the $54,498.18 was dividend or capital gain income to taxpayers rather than a loan.
The Tax Court's opinion emphasized: 1) that the corporations involved were closely held and controlled; 2) that the dividends paid by Berthold Electric were nominal; 3) that there were no notes given and that there was no security in the form of a mortgage required by the alleged lender; 4) that there were no repayments or efforts to force repayments, and that there was no specific time for repayment, and 5) that no interest was paid or accrued on the books.
The Tax Court judge concluded:
The Tax Court's finding that the Berthold Electric Company advances were income and were not loans is an ultimate conclusion of fact by the court which evaluated the evidence, heard and judged the credibility of the witnesses. The Tax Court was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the basic facts. We cannot reverse the Tax Court's ultimate finding unless we can fairly conclude that it is clearly erroneous. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1218 (1960).
Petitioners rely for reversal largely upon three cases: Faitoute v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 32 (1938); McReynolds v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hudlow v. Commissioner
...which must be ultimately resolved is what was really intended by the parties. Berthold v. Commissioner 68-2 USTC ¶ 9670, 404 F. 2d 119, 122 (C. A. 6, 1968), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court Dec. 28,456(M); Gooding Amusement Co. v. Commissioner 56-2 USTC ¶ 9808, 236 F. 2d 159 (C. A. ......
-
Indmar Products Co., Inc. v. C.I.R.
...was whether corporate payment was a dividend or a loan; Duberstein cited for "clearly erroneous" scope of review); Berthold v. Comm'r, 404 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1968) ("Established authority holds that the intention of the parties is the controlling factor in determining whether or not adv......
-
Boecking v. Commissioner, Docket No. 5897-90.
...Inc. v. United States [75-1 USTC ¶ 9151], 505 F.2d 873, 875-876 (5th Cir. 1974) Berthold v. Commissioner [68-2 USTC ¶ 9670]; 404 F.2d 119, 121 (6th Cir. 1968), affg. [Dec. 28,456(M)] T.C. Memo. 1967-102; Chism's Estate v. Commissioner [63-2 USTC ¶ 9640], 322 F.2d 956, 959-960 (9th Cir. 1963......
-
Miele v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...whether at the time the withdrawals in question were made, the parties intended that the amounts withdrawn be repaid. Berthold v. Commissioner, 404 F.2d 119 (C.A. 6, 1968), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Commissioner v. Makransky, 321 F.2d 598 (C.A. 3, 1963); Al Goodman, Inc.......