Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dana

Decision Date28 March 1939
Docket NumberNo. 6766.,6766.
Citation103 F.2d 359
PartiesCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DANA.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Maurice J. Mahoney, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Benjamin Mahler, of New York City, for respondent.

Before DAVIS, MARIS, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

The commissioner determined that there was a deficiency of $125,534.97 in the income taxes of Charles A. Dana, taxpayer, for the year 1929. The taxpayer thereupon filed a petition for review with the Board of Tax Appeals which, on June 11, 1937, filed its opinion (36 B.T.A. 97) in which it found that the commissioner had "erred in determining the above deficiency". From the order of redetermination entered thereon, the commissioner appealed to this court.

The question involved is whether or not the Spicer Manufacturing Company, hereinafter called Spicer, and the Salisbury Axle Company, hereinafter called Salisbury, were parties to a reorganization within the meaning of section 112(i) of the Revenue Act of 1928, 26 U.S.C.A. § 112 note.1

If they were, any "gain" realized by the taxpayer when he exchanged stock in Salisbury for stock in Spicer is not to be "recognized" in computing his taxable income and there was no deficiency, for section 112(b) (3) of the Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 112 (b) (3), provides that: "(3) Stock for stock on reorganization. No gain or loss shall be recognized if stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization are, in pursuance of a plan of reorganization, exchanged solely for stock or securities in such corporation or in another corporation a party to the reorganization."

Whether or not they were parties, depends upon either of two subsidiary questions. The first is whether or not the acquisition by Spicer, which owned approximately two-thirds of all of the outstanding stock of Salisbury, of the remaining one-third outstanding stock constituted a merger or consolidation within the meaning of section 112(i) (1) (A) of the Act. The second question is whether or not the acquisition by Spicer of "substantially all the properties" of Salisbury constituted a merger or consolidation within the meaning of that section.

If either of the above questions are answered in the affirmative, the order of the Board must be affirmed.

Prior to 1927, Spicer was a corporation which was engaged in the manufacture of universal joints and propellor shafts for motor vehicles in its plant at Plainfield, New Jersey. Its outstanding stock consisted of 313,750, out of an authorized 600,000 shares of no par common stock of which the taxpayer owned 118,125 shares. Of the 100,000 shares of $100 par preferred stock authorized, none were outstanding. Salisbury was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of automobile axles at Jamestown, New York. Its outstanding stock consisted of the entire authorized 20,000 shares of no par common, and 27,500 out of an authorized 30,000 shares of $100 par preferred. Approximately two-thirds of both types of stock issued by Salisbury was owned by Spicer, and the remaining one-third was owned by the taxpayer who was president of both corporations.

In 1927, it was determined to move both Spicer and Salisbury to Toledo, Ohio, so that they would be nearer to the automobile industry, and also to merge the operation of both corporations in one plant.

In furtherance of this plan, property was purchased in Toledo and, in the spring of 1928, construction of the plant was started. By the fall of 1928 Spicer commenced the removal of its machinery, equipment and a part of its personnel to the new plant, completing such removal in the first half of 1929. The section of the plant intended for Salisbury was begun early in 1929, and in August of that year the removal of its machinery and equipment to the new plant was begun. By fall the building was completed and by the end of the year substantially all of the machinery and equipment of Salisbury, except obsolete equipment, had been moved.

In the fall of 1928, while the above activities were taking place, the Brown-Lipe Gear Company, hereinafter called Gear Company, which manufactured gears for motor vehicles, was offered for sale for the sum of $3,900,000.

After discussion with certain bankers, a plan was evolved which called for the acquisition by Spicer of all of the outstanding stock of Salisbury and Gear Company, making them wholly owned subsidiaries of Spicer.

In effecting this purpose, the number of authorized shares of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Vest v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • October 28, 1971
    ...as occurred here, might properly be regarded as a C-type reorganization. See sec. 1.382(b)-1(a)(6), Income Tax Regs.; Commissioner v. Dana, 103 F.2d 359 (C.A. 3, 1939), affirming 36 B.T.A. 97 (1937); WAGE, Inc., 19 T.C. 249 (1952); Goldman, ‘The C Reorganization,‘ 19 Tax L.Rev. 31, 37 (1964......
  • King Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • November 14, 1969
    ...transferring Minute Maid stock, cash and notes to Tenco's stockholders. See Rev.Rul. 67-274, 1967-2 C.B. 141; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dana, 103 F.2d 359 (3d Cir. 1939); George Whittell & Co., 34 B.T.A. 1070 (1936). The value of the Minute Maid stock received, which exceeded 50 p......
  • Bercy Indus., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • April 17, 1978
    ...interrelated steps would properly be regarded as a (C) reorganization. See sec. 1.382(b)-1(a)(6), Income Tax Regs.; Dana v. Commissioner, 103 F.2d 359, 362 (3d Cir. 1939), affg. 36 B.T.A. 97 (1937); Vest v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 128, 141 n. 5 (1971), revd. and affd. on other issue 481 F.2d ......
  • Bybee v. Northern Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1962
    ...ownership of one corporation by another. Steinfeld v. Copper State Mining Co., 37 Ariz. 151, 290 P. 155, 160; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dana, 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 359, 361; Commerce Trust Co. v. Woodbury, 8 Cir., 77 F.2d 478, 487, modifying Woodbury v. Pickering Lumber Company, D.C.Mo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT