Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 9659.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtDENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit
Citation119 F.2d 115
PartiesCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. KELLOGG et al.
Docket NumberNo. 9659.,9659.
Decision Date19 April 1941

119 F.2d 115 (1941)

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
KELLOGG et al.

No. 9659.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 19, 1941.


119 F.2d 116

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Warren F. Wattles, and L. W. Post, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Vernon M. Brydolf, of Pasadena, Cal., for respondents.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner seeks a review of a redetermination by the Board of Tax Appeals of a deficiency determined by him of the tax due on income of F. W. Kellogg,1 hereafter called taxpayer, for the tax year 1935.

Taxpayer's petition to the Board for the redetermination of the deficiency was in the usual form setting forth the deficiency letter of the Commissioner and his exceptions to the Commissioner's determination. It admits that there was income taxable to the amount of $6,846.31, but complains that a deficiency assessment of an additional $5,776.89 was erroneously made. Taxpayer complained that this deficiency was due to a finding by the Commissioner overvaluing the cancellation of an obligation of the taxpayer to pay, at his death, to the Kellogg Investment Company, a corporation, without interest, the sum of $43,533.60, the amount of premiums on a policy insuring taxpayer's life which the corporation had paid. It is not claimed that there is fraud or collusion or want of consideration for the absence of interest on the premiums advanced. On the contrary, it appears that a part of the consideration was the assumption by taxpayer of a $20,000 obligation of another debtor of the corporation.

The taxpayer was 69 years of age and had a normal life expectancy of 8.97 years. In his return he gave as income for the cancellation of the future obligation to pay the amount of the premiums the sum of $26,426.90. It is not disputed that this is the present worth of the amount payable at taxpayer's death, if discounted at 6 per cent. per annum. The Commissioner found the value of the cancelled obligation was the full future obligation of $43,533.60 and denies here that the value of the present cancellation was in any way lessened because the amount was not payable by taxpayer until nearly nine years later and then without interest.

The Board determined that the Commissioner erred in finding that the value of the indebtedness payable at taxpayer's death was its valuation at the time the obligation was cancelled by the corporation, and redetermined the tax on the basis of the $26,426.90 gain returned by the taxpayer, — that is, it found no deficiency.

The cancellation of the indebtedness was a part of a final liquidating dividend of the corporation, taxpayer taking it in lieu of other property. The applicable sections of the 1934 Revenue Act in determining a gain or loss from the exchange of his stock in a liquidation of all the assets of a corporation are:

"§ 115. Distributions by Corporations

* * * * *

"(c) Distributions in Liquidation. Amounts distributed in complete liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as in full payment in exchange for the stock, and amounts distributed in partial liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as in part or full payment in exchange for the stock. The gain or loss to the distributee resulting from such exchange shall be determined under section 111, but shall be recognized only to the extent provided in section

119 F.2d 117
112. Despite the provisions of section 117(a), 100 per centum of the gain so recognized shall be taken into account in computing net income. * * *" 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 703

"§ 111. Determination of Amount of, and Recognition of, Gain or Loss

* * * * *

"(b) Amount Realized. The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received." 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, pages 692.

The claim against taxpayer for a future noninterest-bearing debt was property, not money, in the hands of the corporation. It certainly would not have been regarded as money if sold to a third...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Kimmel, 80-1562
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 5, 1982
    ...recent change in our practice, the majority's statement is contrary to the facts. See, e.g., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 119 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1941); Lorber v. Vista Irrigation District, 127 F.2d 628, 639 (9th Cir. 1942); Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 67......
  • Assessing the value of the proposed "no net value" regulations.
    • United States
    • Tax Executive Vol. 57 Nbr. 3, May 2005
    • May 1, 2005
    ...In re Oakes, 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 1993); Covey v. Commercial Nat'l. Bank, 960 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Commissioner v. Kellogg, 119 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1941) (holding that a discount applied in valuing a liquidating dividend in the form of a cancellation of an obligation to (102) S......
  • BRADFORD HOTEL O. CO. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 5179.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 27, 1957
    ...the full sum as income in that year, I do not believe that cases, such as Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 115, involving the cancellation of debts or obligations not payable until a certain date in the future are 244 F.2d 881 Finally, I mention briefly th......
  • Johnston v. Hawkinson, 11879.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 9, 1941
    ...instead of being, `Take this, or take what the law will adjudge to be your due,' would be equivalent to, `Take this, or you will never 119 F.2d 115 get anything.' A debtor who refuses to pay what he acknowledges to be due under those circumstances does not deal fairly with his creditor, and......
3 cases
  • U.S. v. Kimmel, 80-1562
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 5, 1982
    ...recent change in our practice, the majority's statement is contrary to the facts. See, e.g., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 119 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1941); Lorber v. Vista Irrigation District, 127 F.2d 628, 639 (9th Cir. 1942); Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 67......
  • BRADFORD HOTEL O. CO. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 5179.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 27, 1957
    ...the full sum as income in that year, I do not believe that cases, such as Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 115, involving the cancellation of debts or obligations not payable until a certain date in the future are 244 F.2d 881 Finally, I mention briefly th......
  • Johnston v. Hawkinson, 11879.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 9, 1941
    ...instead of being, `Take this, or take what the law will adjudge to be your due,' would be equivalent to, `Take this, or you will never 119 F.2d 115 get anything.' A debtor who refuses to pay what he acknowledges to be due under those circumstances does not deal fairly with his creditor, and......
1 books & journal articles
  • Assessing the value of the proposed "no net value" regulations.
    • United States
    • Tax Executive Vol. 57 Nbr. 3, May 2005
    • May 1, 2005
    ...In re Oakes, 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 1993); Covey v. Commercial Nat'l. Bank, 960 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Commissioner v. Kellogg, 119 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1941) (holding that a discount applied in valuing a liquidating dividend in the form of a cancellation of an obligation to (102) S......

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