Engineering Sales, Inc. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | 74--1867,Nos. 74--1866,s. 74--1866 |
| Citation | 510 F.2d 565 |
| Parties | 75-1 USTC P 9347 ENGINEERING SALES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. Roland E. CEDARHOLM and Elizabeth B. Cedarholm, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Chief, Appellate Section, Charles B. Burroughs, Jr., Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., Gilbert E. Andrews, Acting Chief, Appellate Section, Wayman G. Sherrer, U.S. Atty., Charles D. Stewart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Jonathan S. Cohen, Arthur L. Bailey, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
R. Kent Henslee, Gadsden, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before GEWIN, BELL and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Engineering Sales, Inc. (Sales) sued in the district court to recover taxes assessed and paid as a result of the Commissioner's allocations of income to it from a controlled corporation, Engineered Products, Inc. (Products) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 482. In a separate, consolidated action Ronald E. and Elizabeth B. Cedarholm sought to recover income taxes paid which were attributable to related dividends from Products to their children which, following the allocation, were assessed to Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm as constructive dividends. We reverse the district court's partial award in the allocation suit for failure of proper proof. Reversal of the full recovery allowed in the constructive dividend action must follow.
Sales began business as a partnership, but was incorporated in 1966. Ronald E. and Elizabeth B. Cedarholm own 100% of its stock and are its principal officers. Sales is in the business of installing airconditioning equipment and manufacturing some components of air-conditioning systems. Products, a related marketing company, began its business life with the same partners as Sales, but was incorporated in 1968. Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm own 4 shares of its stock, and their 4 children own the remaining 996 shares. Taxpayers concede that Sales and Products are owned or controlled by the same interests within the meaning of Section 482.
In the years in question, Sales manufactured induced and natural draft cooling towers which were sold by Products. Sales charged Products the exact labor and equipment costs it incurred in these operations and, in addition, billed Products for 7.8% of the gross revenue which Products derived from tower sales. This mark-up percentage had been calculated as an approximation of the overhead expenses incurred by Sales in its manufacturing capacity, based upon the internal expenses of both corporations. It was not ever related to the cost at which a manufactured water tower could have been acquired from or sold to an unrelated business.
During the tax years in issue, Products profits from sales to third persons totaled 35,683.63 dollars. Under Section 482, the Commissioner determined that this entire amount of income should be allocated to Sales. The Commissioner further determined that 11,519.34 dollars distributed by Products to the Cedarholm children as a dividend, should be treated as constructively paid to Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm.
The holding of the district court can be epitomized by the following excerpts:
(The p)rincipal problem becomes not whether Engineered Products, Inc. is a sham which the Court finds it is not and has not been, but under Section 482, whether the income reported by Engineered Products should in whole or in part be treated as really the income of Engineering Sales, Inc.
The Court in this type of case under Section 482 has certain equity powers as I view it in terms of seeing that there be a fair reflection of income on the two returns, giving, however, much credit and consideration to the determination made on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service.
The Court concludes that some portion of the total net profits or income of the two operations can properly be attributed to the effort in selling these water towers, . . . .
I conclude that a fair way for the Court to approach it is to simply conclude that the same percentage of income as measured as against sales should be true for Engineering Sales Corporation as for Engineered Products.
On this basis, the court disallowed 8,600 dollars of the Commissioner's 35,682.63 dollar allocation from Products to Sales.
With regard to constructive dividends, the Court concluded:
I rule in favor of the taxpayers in this case and conclude that Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm should not be held as having received or being accountable as constructively receiving it in some way these distributions made to their children.
It may be that with the adjustments made, this presents some problems regarding the proper tax treatment of the distribution made to the children, but the children are not before the Court as to their tax returns and maybe (the earnings and profits of Engineered Products) would not result in the full distribution being taxable to them at least in this particular year.
On this basis the Court awarded full recovery of the taxes paid on the dividends constructed to Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm.
The government contended, both in administrative proceedings and before the lower court, that Products was a sham corporation, or that, in the alternative, the entire income of Products should be allocated to Sales to reflect clearly the income of both businesses for tax purposes. It further contended that since the Commissioner had shifted all income of Products back to Sales, the stockholders of Sales, Mr. and Mrs. Cedarholm, must pay the tax on the dividends distributed to their children by Products.
The taxpayers contend: (1) the record contained evidence to support the court's finding that Products was not a sham but had a tax-valid business existence and contributed valuable sales efforts to the marketing of towers--thus the Commissioner's 100% allocation of Products' income to Sales was proven to be arbitrary; (2) the proof further sustained the court's equitable approach in calculating its own allocation by applying a percentage of profit on gross sales realized by both companies to Products' sales; (3) no sales took place between the companies--they only had an agreement to share expenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hosp. Corp. of America v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...prices and terms which would have resulted had these services been performed for an unrelated party. See Engineering Sales, Inc. v. United States, 510 F.2d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 1975). Even under the written inter-company agreements that were executed in 1975 (see footnote 30), there is no evi......
-
Brittingham v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...an allocation under section 482 is authorized, the amount of the allocation is dividend income to Robert. See Engineering Sales, Inc. v. United States, 510 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1975); Sammons v. Commissioner, 472 F.2d 449, 453 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1972), revg. on another issue a Memorandum Opinion ......
-
Murry v. C. I. R.
...is arbitrary and capricious and by a showing as to what the correct allocation should have been. Engineering Sales, Inc. v. United States, 510 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1975). The appropriate regulations make clear the scope and purpose of this section. Section 1.482-1 of Treasury Regulations on I......
-
Jerry Lipps, Inc. v. Commissioner
...are altered by a section 482 allocation may fall within this category. Engineering Sales, Inc. v. United States 75-1 USTC ¶ 9347, 510 F.2d 565 (CA-5 1975); Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. Commissioner 72-1 USTC ¶ 9351, 458 F.2d 631 (CA-9 1972), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court Dec. 30,038(M)......