Edmister v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17622.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17622.,17622. |
| Citation | 391 F.2d 584 |
| Parties | William K. EDMISTER and Elizabeth Edmister, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert H. Albert, Columbus, Ohio, for petitioners.
Willy Nordwind, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent. Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, William Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Before O'SULLIVAN and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
William K. Edmister and his wife, Elizabeth, petition this Court for review of a decision of the Tax Court whereby it was held that the transfer of certain real estate from Capital Elevator and Manufacturing Company to the petitioners was essentially equivalent to a dividend and the value thereof taxable as ordinary income. The facts are not disputed and are fully stated in the finding of facts and opinion of the Tax Court reported at 46 T.C. 651.
In 1961 and for some time prior thereto the capital stock of Capital Elevator and Manufacturing Company (the corporation) was owned as follows: William Edmister (William) 513 shares, his wife 18 shares, 39.3 percent of the total; Dorothy Edmister, sister-in-law of William, and her three minor children 441 shares, 32.7 percent of the total, and Guy R. Blackwood, 378 shares, or 28 percent of the total. At this time Blackwood was 72 years of age and because of his age and state of health wished to retire and dispose of his interest in the corporation. He had an opportunity to sell his stock for $110 per share. The prospective purchaser, however, would not buy unless he could get controlling interest in the company. William was only 50 years of age and he wanted to continue in the business but did not want to be a minority stockholder.
Agreements were made between the shareholders and with City National Bank and Trust Company of Columbus, whereby the following transactions were simultaneously made on October 23, 1961. The corporation transferred its real estate known as the Town Street property, valued at $46,500, to William; William transferred his 513 shares to the corporation; the bank loaned William and his wife $45,000 and took a mortgage on the Town Street property and on the home of William and his wife. With the $45,000 plus $3723.85 of their own money, William purchased the 441 shares of stock of Dorothy Edmister and her children; William and his wife leased the Town Street property to the corporation for $500 per month, the same amount William and his wife were obligated to pay the bank on the mortgage; the lease was assigned to the bank and William's new certificate for 441 shares of stock was given to the bank as additional security for the loan and an agreement was entered into whereby the corporation agreed to buy Blackwood's stock for $110 per share on January 1, 1962. As of December 31, 1960, the balance sheet of the corporation showed that it had $55,333.84 in earned surplus and accumulated undivided profits.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent, claimed that the transfer of real estate for William's stock was a redemption of stock essentially equivalent to a dividend and that the value thereof was taxable as ordinary income. (Section 302(b) (1), Title 26, U.S.C.) The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner and William and his wife petitioned for review....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. CIR
...sale should escape taxation —and in a greater amount than imposed through Appellants' transactions. See Edmister v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 391 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1968) ; Montesi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 340 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 6 Taxpayers point out that the original ass......
-
Bennett v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...F.2d 694 (C.A. 7, 1948), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; William K. Edmister, 46 T.C. 651(1966), affirmed per curiam 391 F.2d 584 (C.A. 6, 1968); Aloysius J. McGinty, 38 T.C. 882(1962), affd. 325 F.2d 820 (C.A. 2, 1963); Frank P. Holloway, a Memorandum Opinion of this Court da......
-
Honigman v. CIR, 71-1927
...we affirm. See Palmer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, 302 U.S. 63, 58 S.Ct. 67, 82 L.Ed. 50; Edmister v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 391 F.2d 584, 585 (6th Cir. 1968). Taxpayers further assert that the decision of the Tax Court was erroneous on the ground that the Pantlind......
-
NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS, INC. v. Commissioner
...taxpayer rather than on the basis of some other plan that might have been adopted." Edmister v. Commissioner 68-1 USTC ¶ 9292, 391 F. 2d 584, 586 (C.A. 6, 1968) affirming per curiam Dec. 28,082 46 T.C. 651 We are not impressed by petitioner's belated claim that it earned no income. Petition......