Goldman v. United States, 9846.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 9846.,9846. |
| Citation | 403 F.2d 776 |
| Parties | Alfred D. GOLDMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Byrne A. Bowman and Thomas F. McIntyre, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Richard F. McDivitt, Oklahoma City, Okl., with them on brief) for appellant.
Benjamin M. Parker, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and Robert N. Anderson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with him on brief) for appellee.
Before LEWIS, SETH and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
In this action the taxpayer claims a refund for deficiencies assessed and paid for taxable years 1960 and 1961. Taxpayer claimed interest deductions under 26 U.S.C. § 163(a).
In 1960 and 1961 taxpayer had insurance policies issued on the life of his brother in the amount of $100,000 and $250,000 respectively. The insurer was Western Security Life Insurance Company of Oklahoma City. Taxpayer's father was president and his brother was a general agent of the life insurance company. The trial court denied the claim for refund. The question presented is: Are the interest deductions of $1,174.30 and $2,962.94, as shown below, proper deductions on taxpayer's income tax return for the taxable years in question?
First policy year premium $ 6,362.00
Next four annual premiums (discounted) 23,648.19
First year interest on loan (1960) 1,174.30
__________
Total due from taxpayer $31,184.49
Loan to taxpayer ($29,357.55)
Commission credit allowed
taxpayer (953.40) (30,310.95)
__________
Net payment during 1960 by taxpayer $ 873.54
First policy year premium $16,082.50
Next four annual premiums (discounted) 59,780.26
First year interest on loan (1961) 2,962.94
__________
Total due from taxpayer $78,825.70
Loan to taxpayer ($74,073.45)
Commission credit allowed
taxpayer ( 2,507.76) (76,581.21)
___________
Net payment during 1961 by taxpayer $ 2,244.49
The policies had fixed annual premiums, for the first twenty years, of $6,362.00 and $16,082.50. During the remainder of the insured's life they required a reduced premium payment.
As indicated above, the taxpayer prepaid the annual premiums for the first five years of the twenty year period and immediately made application for a loan on the policies, pursuant to the provisions of the policies, which was credited to the transaction on the books of the company as reflected above.
The facts were stipulated by counsel and are adopted in the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the trial court. In addition to the stipulated findings of fact, the trial court found the "debts" created by the alleged borrowing by the taxpayer were not bona fide debts, therefore, the interest was not paid for the use of borrowed money. The policy loan plan utilized in this case was premised on a real debt between the taxpayer and the insurance company; the whole arrangement, sophisticated as it was, was not that of a genuine indebtedness. These "loans" or "debts" need never have been repaid. At the end of any premium payment period, the loans could be wiped out merely by a set of book entries, and without any money changing hands. This result comes about because the cash surrender value of the policies in question is equal to 100% of the loan value. The court further found that based upon all the facts and circumstances in this case, the alleged loans and borrowings between the plaintiff and the insurance company were not bona fide loans and in practical effect the borrowings and premium payments were mere book entries offsetting each other. These entries, or paperwork, served to accomplish a claim for an alleged annual interest deduction.
The court concluded that the interest payments were not payment for borrowed money and were without economic substance, therefore, not deductible as interest on indebtedness within the meaning of Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 163(a). The court further concluded that the transaction was a single premium insurance policy and therefore non-deductible ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re CM Holdings, Inc.
...taxpayer took out life insurance policy loans with a fixed spread. See Woodson-Tenent Lab., Inc., 454 F.2d at 639; Goldman v. United States, 403 F.2d 776, 778 (10th Cir.1968); Cen-Tex, Inc., 377 F.2d at 689; Priester Mach. Co., 296 F.Supp. at 605; Golsen II, 80 USTC (CCH) ? 9741, 1980 WL 47......
-
Golsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 5863-65.
...on borrowed funds. T is not entitled to any deduction for ‘interest’ paid. Sec. 163. I.R.C. 1954. The result follows Goldman v. United States, 403 F.2d 776 (C.A. 10), rather than the contrary holding in Campbell v. Cen-Tex, Inc., 337 F.2d 688 (C.A. 5). The present case is within the Tenth C......
-
Salley v. CIR
...385 U.S. 1005, 87 S.Ct. 708, 17 L.Ed.2d 543; Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 10 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 985; Goldman v. United States, 10 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 776. As the Tax Court correctly points out, if any so-called interest payments are not deductible as "interest" under Section......
-
Coors v. United States, 73-75.
...Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 6 Cir., 454 F.2d 637, 638-39; see also Campbell v. Cen-Tex, Inc., supra; cf. Goldman v. United States, 403 F.2d 776 (10th Cir. 1968). Analysis of the other cases cited by defendant also shows marked and significant factual differences from the case at ba......