Gould v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 01 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 1552-73. |
| Citation | 64 T.C. 132 |
| Parties | JAMES O. GOULD AND BETTY L. GOULD, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bernard L. McAra, for the petitioners.
Virginia M. Tomasulo, for the respondent.
A shareholder paid some of the debts of his corporation. Held, such payments were made to preserve his employment at another corporation and are deductible under sec. 162(a), I.R.C. 1954.
The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in the petitioners' Federal income taxes:
+--------------------+
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦
+------+-------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+------+-------------¦
¦1965 ¦$1,912.04 ¦
+------+-------------¦
¦1968 ¦3,143.48 ¦
+--------------------+
The only issue for decision is whether certain payments which Mr. Gould made to creditors of his wholly owned corporation were, in effect, contributions to the capital of that corporation or were made to preserve his employment with another corporation.
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and those facts are so found.
The petitioners, James O. Gould and Betty L. Gould, husband and wife, had their legal residence at Davisburg, Mich., at the time of filing their petition herein. They filed joint Federal income tax returns with the District Director of Internal Revenue, Detroit, Mich., for the year 1965, and with the Internal Revenue Service Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the year 1968.
On May 1, 1966, Mr. Gould incorporated Gould Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (GPH), to perform residential plumbing and heating services. Mr. Gould owned all of its capital stock of $1,000, and he was the president and an employee of the corporation.
In the latter part of 1966, Industrial Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (IMC), was incorporated. Mr. Gould invested $2,500 for a 25-percent interest in IMC. IMC was engaged in performing industrial plumbing and heating services of a specialized nature. In order to obtain jobs, it had to have its name included on a list of contractors who would be invited to submit bids on work projects. Mr. Gould was a director of IMC at its inception, and he became a part-time employee in the latter part of 1967. In 1968, he was employed full time at IMC as its secretary and purchasing agent. As the purchasing agent, he had direct contact with the manufacturers who supplied the materials, and he contracted for materials for IMC's jobs. At IMC. Mr. Gould dealt with companies that also did business with Gph.
Mr. Gould reported compensation from GPH and IMC on his Federal income tax returns as follows:
+--------------------+
¦Year ¦GPH ¦IMC ¦
+------+------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+------+------¦
¦1966 ¦$7,200¦0 ¦
+------+------+------¦
¦1967 ¦15,550¦$600 ¦
+------+------+------¦
¦1968 ¦9,400 ¦11,750¦
+------+------+------¦
¦1969 ¦0 ¦20,280¦
+--------------------+
During the latter part of 1967 and continuing through 1968, GPH was experiencing financial difficulties. By April 30, 1968, its balance sheet reflected a deficit of $21,298. When Mr. Gould was apprised of GPH's financial condition, he caused GPH to cease operating, since he had neither the time nor the money to effect a change in its condition. As the year progressed, GPH's creditors grew increasingly concerned over its ability to make payments on debts due them. Eventually, in the fall of 1968, one of those creditors garnisheed the bank account and accounts receivable of GPH. Some of those accounts receivable were owned by persons who also dealt with IMC.
IMC's directors considered that GPH's financial plight might adversely affect IMC as a result of its association with Mr. Gould. In 1961, Mr. Gould was associated with a corporation which had become bankrupt, and such fact was noted on IMC's Dun and Bradstreet report. Some of IMC's suppliers and customers had commented on the bankruptcy, and there was some reluctance to include IMC on bid lists, even though IMC's creditors looked only to IMC for payment of its debts. IMC's directors were concerned that if another corporation of Mr. Gould's became bankrupt, the danger of injury to IMC's financial standing would be increased. The risk of IMC being removed from the bid list would be enhanced, and they felt that it would be untenable for IMC to have Mr. Gould as its purchasing agent dealing with creditors with whom, in another business, he was entering bankruptcy proceedings. IMC' directors treated the problem as a crucial matter although none of its suppliers or creditors altered or threatened to alter their dealings with IMC. IMC experienced no change in its credit rating during 1968.
The IMC directors repeatedly and strongly impressed upon Mr. Gould the importance of working out some arrangement satisfactory to GPH's creditors. Mr. Gould believed that he would have to settle GPH's affairs satisfactorily or his employment with IMC would be terminated, although none of the other directors explicitly stated that his job was in jeopardy. On November 14, 1968, Mr. Gould and four of GPH's creditors reached a compromise. It was agreed that GPH's obligations of $39,600 were to be settled by Mr. Gould's payment of $30,960, although he was not personally liable for those obligations. After the compromised was reached, GPH became dormant: its only functions consisting of collecting receivables, selling its assets, and making payments on its outstanding liabilities. The balance sheets of GPH reflected deficits of $43,176 and $60,191 for its fiscal years 1969 and 1970, respectively.
On their Federal income tax return for the year 1968, the petitioners deducted the payments Mr. Gould made to GPH's creditors as business expenses, thus showing a net operating loss for that year. The petitioners also filed an application for a tentative carryback adjustment claiming a refund of taxes for the year 1965, which was allowed. In his notice of deficiency, the Commissioner determined that the payments constituted a contribution to capital, that there was no net operating loss in 1968, and that there was no loss carryback to 1965.
OPINIONThe only issue to be decided is whether Mr. Gould's payments to the creditors of GPH were deductible under section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1 That section provides in part:
(a) IN GENERAL.— There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business * * *
Ordinarily, a shareholder may not deduct a payment made on behalf of the corporation, but must treat it as a capital expenditure. Deputy v. DuPont, 308 U.S. 488 (1940); Bert B. Rand, 35 T.C. 956 (1961). However, such rule is not invariable; the payment may be deducted if it is an ordinary and necessary expense of a trade or business of the shareholder. James L. Lohrke, 48 T.C. 679 (1967). During 1968, Mr. Gould was an employee of IMC, in addition to being the sole shareholder of GPH. His employment with IMC constituted a business, and he is entitled to deduct expenditures that have the requisite relationship to such employment. Fischer v. United States, 490 F.2d 218 (7th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Concord Instruments Corporation v. Commissioner
...litigation threatens its existence); Commissioner v. Heininger [44-1 USTC ¶ 9109], 320 U.S. 467, 475 (1943); Gould v. Commissioner [Dec. 33,167], 64 T.C. 132, 134-135 (1975); Lohrke v. Commissioner, supra at 684-685; Penner v. Commissioner [Dec. 24,995], 36 T.C. 886, 895 (1961); Catholic Ne......
-
Capital Video Corp. v. C.I.R.
...business interests, the payment may sometimes be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. See Gould v. Comm'r, 64 T.C. 132, 134-35, 1975 WL 3011 (1975). The relevant test is that of Lohrke v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 679, 1967 WL 977 (1967), which the parties agree applies. Th......
-
Mitchell v. C.I.R., 94-1966
...and necessary business expenses if such payments are made to prevent injury to the taxpayer's business reputation. Gould v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 132, 135, 1975 WL 3011 (1975). Yet, regardless of purpose, an expense is not deductible if it is used for the acquisition of a capital asset. Bar......
-
Markwardt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...A deduction is allowable only if the expenditures are made to protect or promote the shareholder's own trade or business. See James O. Gould, 64 T.C. 132 (1975); James L. Lohrke, 48 T.C. 679 (1967). However, the trade or business of the corporation must be considered separately from the tra......