Brecklein v. Bookwalter
Decision Date | 15 July 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 13236-4. |
Citation | 231 F. Supp. 404 |
Parties | Joseph H. BRECKLEIN and Frances R. Brecklein, Plaintiffs, v. Edwin O. BOOKWALTER, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, by Samuel J. Molby and Russell W. Baker, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., by William A. Kitchen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., Robert W. Ryan, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
In this suit for refund of income taxes for the year 1957 in the sum of $9,222.62 (or, in the alternative, in the sum of $4,161.17) the following facts appear from the discovery proceedings, the pre-trial proceedings, the admissions of the parties, and hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment was expanded into a plenary evidentiary hearing on the separate issue of alleged discrimination.
On June 25, 1954, the City of Kansas City, Missouri, enacted Ordinance No. 17974 authorizing the acquisition and construction of offstreet parking facilities for the business district in and around the intersections of 31st Street and Linwood Boulevard with Troost Avenue. The ordinance determined the district which was deemed to be benefitted from the proposed improvements and against which special assessments would be made in accordance with Sections 151 and 152 of the Charter of Kansas City. The plaintiff Joseph Brecklein, individually and as trustee, owned real property in the benefit district.
In due course, pursuant to the ordinance and City Charter, special tax bills were issued against business rental properties owned by the plaintiff Joseph Brecklein individually and as trustee, as follows: Special tax bills Nos. 77 and 79 in the total amount of $9,114.30 were issued against the property owned by Joseph Brecklein as trustee. Special tax bill No. 78 in the amount of $10,315.00 was issued against the property owned by plaintiff Joseph Brecklein individually.
Under the terms of the tax bills the principal sum could be paid in one lump sum without interest, or in five annual installments with 6 per cent interest on the unpaid balances.
On January 15, 1957, plaintiff Joseph Brecklein, individually and as trustee, paid the special assessments of tax bills Nos. 77, 78, and 79. Thereafter on or before April 15, 1958, Joseph Brecklein and the plaintiff Frances Brecklein, his wife, filed a joint individual income tax return for 1957 in which they did not deduct as an expense the payment of the special assessment paid on the individual property of Joseph Brecklein.
On or before April 15, 1958, Joseph Brecklein as trustee filed a fiduciary income tax return in which the special assessment paid as trustee was not deducted as an expense. However on June 3, 1960, the plaintiff Joseph Brecklein as trustee filed an amended fiduciary return for 1957, claiming an additional expense deduction of $10,315.00.
On November 21, 1958, and June 7, 1960, the plaintiffs filed claims for refund of an alleged overpayment of income taxes resulting from failure to deduct the special assessments paid in 1957. (The plaintiffs were affected individually by the trust property assessment because Joseph Brecklein was a beneficiary of the trust and obligated to report and pay taxes on the individual income reflected by the fiduciary return.)
In the same Kansas City special benefit district in which plaintiff Joseph Brecklein owned the business rental properties involved in this case, a partnership owned a business rental property known as the Wirthman Building. A special assessment for the proposed offstreet parking improvement was made against this building. The owners elected to pay the assessment in five annual installments. The partnership fiscal year ended on January 31 of each year. For the fiscal year ended January 31, 1958, the Wirthman Building owners capitalized the first installment. Later, after revocation of the determination letter hereafter mentioned, the owners capitalized the installments paid during the fiscal years ended January 31 of 1961 and 1962.
But in the returns for the fiscal years ended January 31 of 1959 and 1960, the installments paid were deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses under the authority of the following determination letter of June 18, 1959, issued by the District Director:
This determination letter was revoked by a letter dated January 12, 1961, as follows:
The Wirthman Building letter revocation was applied prospectively only, leaving the deductions of two installments undisturbed by retroactive application of the letter of revocation.
The Wirthman Building determination letter followed a ruling issued on May 21, 1958, to the City of Bismarck, North Dakota, by the Acting Director, Tax Rulings Division, concerning the deductibility for federal income tax purposes of special assessments against commercial properties to finance off-street parking facilities. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dixon v. Unied States
...F.2d 251, 150 Ct.Cl. 538; City Loan & Savings Co. v. United States, 177 F.Supp. 843, aff'd 287 F.2d 612 (C.A.6th Cir.); Brecklein v. Bookwalter, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 404; Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. v. United States, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 10 The opinion of the Court of Appeals stated that §......
-
Bookwalter v. Brecklein
...were eventually revoked but were revoked prospectively rather than retroactively. The District Court, whose opinion is reported at 231 F.Supp. 404, allowed appellee to recover for years prior to the time the private letter rulings were revoked. We The facts, which are not in dispute, are se......
- Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant
-
Brecklein v. Bookwalter
...in this trial court. That original decision in favor of the taxpayer was then considered sound for the reasons given in Brecklein v. Bookwalter (W.D. Mo.) 231 F.Supp. 404. From the original judgment the Government appealed. The original decision of this Court was reversed and remanded. Brec......