Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Chicle Co., 380.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 380.,380. |
| Citation | 65 F.2d 454 |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN CHICLE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and William Cutler Thompson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Byron M. Coon, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
Breed, Abbott & Morgan, of New York City (Paul L. Peyton, of Bronxville, N. Y., and William C. Breed, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
The question presented by this appeal arises as follows: In 1914 the taxpayer, which keeps its books on an accrual basis, bought all the assets of another company, and assumed its debts. These included an issue of bonds which provided for an annual amortization by purchase in the market. In the years 1924 and 1925, the taxpayer, in accordance with its obligation bought a number of these bonds at less than their face and so retired them. The Commissioner charged it, as present income, with the difference between the face of these bonds and the amount at which they were bought. The taxpayer appealed, the Board expunged this part of the deficiency, and the Commissioner in turn appealed to this court.
The question depends for its answer upon the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U. S. 1, 52 S. Ct. 4, 76 L. Ed. 131, where it was held that such a profit was income, in a case where the bonds had been issued by the taxpayer for money, and been bought and retired in the same year. The First circuit in Commissioner v. Coastwise Transportation Co. (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 332, extended the doctrine to a case where the taxpayer had bought a fleet of ships, for which it gave in part payment a series of notes secured by a mortgage on the fleet. Some of these it retired at less than par. Later it refunded the notes by a bond issue, some of which it also retired at less than par. As to both it was charged with the difference as income. These are the only decisions in the courts which have dealt with the question. However, since 1921 the Commissioner's regulations (now article 545, Regulations 69), have provided that although, "if bonds are issued * * * at their face value, the corporation realizes no gain or loss," it does so upon their retirement at less than their "face value." This was the regulation approved in United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co. v. Haynes
... ... estimated profits. Taylor v. Commissioner of ... Internal Revenue , 7 cir., 89 F.2d 465 ... Int. Rev. v. American Chicle Co. , 2 cir., 65 ... F.2d 454. And where ... ...
-
Fifth Ave-Fourteenth St. Corp. v. Commissioner of IR
...denied 293 U.S. 595, 55 S.Ct. 110, 79 L.Ed. 689. 5 Helvering v. American Chicle Co., 291 U.S. 426, 54 S.Ct. 460, 78 L.Ed. 891, reversing 65 F.2d 454, 455, where we had said: "When a taxpayer gets money by issuing an obligation which he later discharges for less than its face, the transactio......
-
Frank v. United States
...of the Sen-Sen Chiclet Co. assets." The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit supported the view of the Board of Tax Appeals (65 F.2d 454, 455). In doing so it drew a distinction "between obligations whose consideration is money, and those issued or assumed for property which the o......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jacobson
...Co., 291 U.S. 426, 54 S.Ct. 460, 78 L.Ed. 891. There, the Board of Tax Appeals, affirmed by the Court of Appeals (Commissioner v. American Chicle Co., 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 454), had denied the Commissioner's contention that corporate bonds purchased at less than their face value represented a ga......