French Dry Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 7290.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 7290.,7290. |
| Citation | 72 F.2d 167 |
| Parties | FRENCH DRY CLEANING CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INT. REV. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Herbert J. Haas, Bertram S. Boley, and Joseph F. Haas, all of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Lucius A. Buck and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and W. Frank Gibbs, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.
On January 16, 1928, petitioner transferred substantially all its assets to Atlanta Laundries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, organized for the purpose of consolidating and acquiring the business and assets of petitioner and ten other laundries and dry cleaning establishments operating in Atlanta, Ga. Petitioner received $305,331.18 cash, 3,025 shares of preferred stock, and 7,652½ shares of common stock of the new corporation, both having no par value. Petitioner returned no taxable income for 1928 and paid no tax. The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $37,994.17. In arriving at this conclusion he gave the preferred stock fair market value of $100 per share and the common stock $15 per share. On appeal the Board of Tax Appeals gave the preferred stock fair market value of $60 a share and the common stock no value at all, disallowed other items considered by the Commissioner, unnecessary to mention, and redetermined the deficiency at $12,299.11. The sole question presented for decision is whether the stock, preferred and common, is to be considered as having had fair market value when received, under the provisions of section 112, Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2112).
Petitioner produced two witnesses, engaged in the investment banking and securities business, who testified that the stock of Atlanta Laundries, Inc., was not listed on any exchange, there was no dealers' market for it, and they did not know of any sales that had been made of it. But their testimony does not tend to show it had no value at all. It appears from the record that in July, 1932, Atlanta Laundries, Inc., defaulted on the payment of interest on its bonds. It is probable that thereafter the stock had little or no value. That, however, is immaterial as we are dealing with the situation existing in January, 1928, when the reorganization was effected. It further appears that for the twelve months ending November 15,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. C.I.R.
...402, 408 (5th Cir.1967); Willow Terrace Development Co. v. Commissioner, 345 F.2d 933, 936 (5th Cir.1965); French Dry Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, 72 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1934); Reg. Sec. 20.2031-1(b) (estate tax); Sec. 25.2512-1 (gift tax); Sec. 1.170-1(c)(1) (income tax deduction for charit......
-
Weil v. Donnelly
...March 27, 1944; T.D. 5906, May 27, 1952), 4(a), P.H.Par. 123,305. Stiles v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 951; French Dry Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 72 F.2d 167; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Swenson, 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 544; O'Malley v. Ames, 8 Cir., 197 F.2d 256; Iriarte v. U......
-
Bar L Ranch, Inc. v. Phinney
...Revenue, 5 Cir. 1957, 250 F.2d 242, 249, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 950, 78 S.Ct. 915, 2 L.Ed.2d 844; French Dry Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir. 1934, 72 F.2d 167. Bar L contended in the District Court and on appeal that since both the obligors on the note and accounts ......
-
Kline v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 7981.
...v. Kendrick Coal & Dock Co., 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 330, certiorari denied 294 U.S. 716, 55 S.Ct. 515, 79 L.Ed. 1249, and French Dry Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 72 F.2d 167. In Guggenheim v. Rasquin, 312 U.S. 254, 258, 61 S.Ct. 507, 85 L.Ed. 813, the Supreme Court stated that the absence......