Fox v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 30 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 39458. |
| Citation | 20 T.C. 1094 |
| Parties | MAURICE FOX, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dividends on petitioner's federal savings and loan association shares were declared and payable on December 31, 1949. Had petitioner on that date personally appeared and demanded the dividends they would have been paid, but, in fact, the dividends were paid in regular course by checks which were received by petitioner in 1950. Held, the dividends were not constructively received during the taxable year 1949, but were income in 1950. Morris M. Schnitzer, Esq., for the petitioner.
John J. Hopkins, Esq., for the respondent.
The Commissioner has determined a deficiency of $4,072.36 in petitioner's income tax for the year 1949. This deficiency is due to one adjustment explained in the deficiency notice as follows:
(a) It has been determined that taxable dividends in the amount of $7,012.50, reported by taxpayer in 1950, were actually unqualifiedly available in 1949 and therefore reportable in 1949.
The amount of year-end dividends now in controversy is $2,050.
The petitioner, Maurice Fox, is an individual residing in East Orange, New Jersey. Petitioner filed his income tax return for the taxable year 1949 with the collector for the fifth district of New Jersey. The petitioner reported his income on the cash receipts and disbursements basis of accounting.
On December 31, 1949, petitioner owned investment shares totaling $500,000 in 100 different federally guaranteed savings and loan associations which were located throughout the United States. Of the dividends on these investment shares, the amount of $7,012.50 was determined by the respondent to have been taxable to petitioner in the year 1949. In respect to these dividends it has been agreed by the parties:
(a) The amount of $2,584.58 was received by and taxable to the petitioner as income received during the taxable year 1949.
(b) The amount of $2,377.92 was not available to the petitioner until after the taxable year 1949 and therefore not taxable to him in 1949.
(c) The amount of $2,050.00, which constitutes the balance of the dividends, is the amount in controversy.
The dividends in question were received from 27 different savings and loan associations located in 17 different states. The 27 associations declared and paid the dividends in question under the following circumstances:
(a) The dividends constitute the semi-annual dividends for the second half of 1949.
(b) All said dividends were declared on or before December 31, 1949.
(c) All said dividends were payable on or before December 31, 1949.
(d) All said dividends were actually paid by mailed check, which check was actually received by the petitioner on or after January 2, 1950.
(e) The dividends were unqualifiedly available to the demand of the petitioner in the event he personally appeared and demanded same on December 31, 1949.
(f) The practice of paying dividends by check and the mailing thereof was followed by the savings and loan associations as a convenience to the shareholders.
(g) The practice of paying dividends by check and the mailing thereof was not followed with the purpose of preventing the shareholders from receiving their dividend checks before January 1, 1950.
(h) Certain of the above-stated associations paid the dividends on December 31, 1949, to shareholders who personally appeared and requested payment.
All of the facts which have been stipulated are incorporated herein by this reference.
The sole issue in this proceeding is whether certain dividends from federal savings and loan associations are taxable to petitioner during the taxable year 1949, or in 1950. These dividends were not actually received by petitioner, a cash basis taxpayer, until the year 1950. Nevertheless, respondent determined the dividends are taxable to petitioner during 1949, based on constructive receipt during 1949. In support of his determination respondent relies primarily on the following facts: (1) That the dividends were declared and were payable in 1949, and (2) that had petitioner appeared in person at the associations on December 31, 1949, and demanded the dividends they would have been paid in 1949. These dividends are taxable to petitioner during 1949 if, and only if, they were unqualifiedly made subject to his demand during 1949. See Avery v. Commissioner, 292 U.S. 210.
The applicable provision of the Code is section 42 which reads, in part, as follows:
SEC. 42. PERIOD IN WHICH ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME INCLUDED.
(a) GENERAL RULE.— The amount of all items of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer, unless, under methods of accounting permitted under section 41, any such amounts are to be properly accounted for as of a different period. * * *
The corresponding section of Regulations 111, section 29.42-3, as set forth in the margin,1 deals in part specifically with shareholders of building and loan associations. It does not deal specifically with shareholders of federally guaranteed savings and loan associations such as we have here. Neither party refers in their briefs to the sentence in the regulations which we have marked for emphasis. We think that provision in the regulations has no application here. We have here no crediting of earnings by a building and loan association to its shareholders. We have here the payment of dividends in regular course of business by federal savings and loan associations to their shareholders and the mailing out of these dividends in the regular way.
The statutory provisions permitting the organization of federal savings and loan associations are found in the Home Owner's Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C.A., sections 1461-1468. Today, shares in federal savings and loan associations are common and widely held by investors. We think the part of the applicable regulations which is applicable to the facts of the instant case is that part which reads as follows:
Dividends on corporate stock are subject to tax when unqualifiedly made subject to the demand of the shareholder. If a dividend is declared payable on December 31 and the corporation intended to and did follow its practice of paying the dividends by checks mailed so that the shareholders would not receive them until January of the following year, such dividends are not considered to have been unqualifiedly made subject to the demand of the shareholders prior to January, when the checks were actually received. * * *
Respondent's principal reliance is upon the following stipulation of fact:
(e) The dividends were unqualifiedly available to the demand of the petitioner in the event he personally appeared and demanded same on December 31, 1949.
It should be noted that it is also stipulated that the practice of paying dividends by checks was followed for the convenience of the shareholders and was not followed for the purpose of preventing the shareholders from receiving their dividend checks before January 1, 1950.
Respondent relies on Frank W. Kunze, 19 T.C. 29, affd. 203 F.2d 957, which involved closely associated taxpayers. That case is distinguishable on its facts and is not controlling here. In that case it was held that a dividend check made available to the taxpayer on the last day of the year in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henningsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 52544
...albeit payment thereof was deducted by the Produce Company on its 1946 income tax return. Cf. Avery v. Commissioner, 292 U.S. 210; Maurice Fox, 20 T.C. 1094. By proper amendment of his pleadings, respondent has made timely claim for the increased deficiency in 1947 consequent on such holdin......
-
Romine v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 49090.
...no unconditional right to the income existed prior to such receipt. See also Commissioner v. Fox, (C.A. 3, 1954) 218 F.2d 347, affirming 20 T.C. 1094 (1953). In James E. Lewis, 30 B.T.A. 318 (9134), where the taxpayer obtained a check in 1929 for certain profits, the Board of Tax Appeals he......
-
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Fox, 11346.
...111. A majority of the Tax Court, three judges dissenting, concluded that the Commissioner erred in applying this doctrine. See 20 T.C. 1094. The Commissioner brought the case to this Both the Commissioner and the taxpayer rely on Avery v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1934, 292 U.S. 21......
-
Estate of Snider v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 58199.
...nature like those sometimes to be found where periodic payments, such as interest1 or dividends, are due on certain dates. Cf.Maurice Fox, 20 T.C. 1094, affd. (C.A. 3) 218 F.2d 347. There, a long continued practice known to the taxpayer may well have the effect of converting the provision i......
-
Barriers to the application of the constructive receipt doctrine.
...19 T.C. 29 (1952). (70)Id. (71)Avery v. Commissioner, 67 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1933), rev'd 292 U.S. 210 (1934). (72)Commissioner v. Fox, 20 T.C. 1094 (1953), acq., 1955-2 C.B. 6, aff'd, 218 F.2d 347 (3d Cir. 1955). (73)Rev. Rul 58-62, 1958-1 C.B. 234; Lewis v. Commissioner 30 B.T.A. 318 (1934......