Holbrook v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 April 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 60-277.
• Citation: 194 F. Supp. 252
• Parties: Stewart H. HOLBROOK and Sibyl Holbrook, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

194 F. Supp. 252

Stewart H. HOLBROOK and Sibyl Holbrook, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. No. 60-277.

United States District Court D. Oregon.

April 12, 1961.

James D. Tredup (of Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezendorf), Portland, Or., for plaintiffs.

C. E. Luckey, U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for defendant.

KILKENNY, District Judge.

Action by plaintiffs to recover income taxes which they allege were erroneously, excessively and illegally assessed by the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Oregon for the calendar year 1954.

Plaintiffs duly made and filed with said District Director their joint income tax return for the year 1954, using the cash receipts and disbursements method of reporting. The entire amount of tax for such year was paid along with, or prior to, the filing of such return. Plaintiff Stewart H. Holbrook is an internationally known author. Prior to December 31, 1948, Holbrook began labor on an artistic work entitled "The Age of the Moguls" and about December 5, 1951, he entered into an agreement with Doubleday & Company, Inc. (herein called publisher), as publisher, to complete such work for that company. Said work was completed and delivered to publisher on or shortly after April 21, 1953, and was published during the same year.

Paragraphs 5¹ and 20² of said agreement are of great importance to a proper decision of the issues between the parties.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5(a) of said agreement, publisher advanced to plaintiff Stewart H. Holbrook against his earnings from said work amounts aggregating $6,000; $1,000 in 1951, and $5,000 in 1952. Said amounts were included by plaintiffs in their gross income in their tax return for the year in which received. Under this contract said plaintiff received the following cash amounts for the years indicated: 1951—$1,000 (for editorial expenses); 1953—$3,000; 1954—$31,683.58; 1955—$5,170.43. The gross income from said work through the year 1959 was $46,854.01.

By letter dated January 28, 1954, publisher, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 20, transmitted to said plaintiff its statement as of October 31, 1953. This was the first statement of account between the parties. This statement showed author's royalties earned by the book from the day of publication through October 31, 1953, at $7,105.10. The advances above mentioned were deducted from the royalties due as shown by said account and a charge was made by publisher for indexing in the amount of $76, which was also deducted. The net cash amount remitted to Holbrook was $1,029.10. This covered the accounting period to October 31, 1953.

On their income tax return for 1954 plaintiffs reported income of $31,584 from said work. This amount included the $1,029.10 net cash amount above mentioned. In due course said return was audited by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and, as a result of such examination, a determination was made by him that there was a deficiency income tax due from plaintiffs in the sum of $3,206.63 for the calendar year 1954, and said amount was assessed against plaintiffs as additional income tax for such year. Of said amount, only $2,636.48 is in dispute. In arriving at his determination as to the disputed portion of the deficiency, the Commissioner refused to permit plaintiffs to compute their 1954 income tax under the provisions of 26 U. S.C. § 1302 (§ 1302 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954). On October 9, 1957, plaintiffs paid the amount of said disputed assessment for such year to the District Director, plus interest on such tax in the sum of $385.32, making a total of $3,021.80 on the disputed item. A proper claim for refund was filed by plaintiffs and such claim was disallowed in full.

Plaintiffs' Contentions.

I. Plaintiffs contend that the $1,000 advanced on future earnings in 1951 and the $5,000 advanced on future earnings in 1952 were received from publisher as repayable loans and not income and said sums should be included as income in 1954, so that they would be entitled to use the "spread back" relief provided by said § 1302 with respect to the gross income from said work.

II. In the alternative, plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to have their income tax for 1954 computed in accordance with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 1341(a), on the theory that they did not have an unrestricted right to the said sum of $6,000 and that it was restored to publisher in 1954.

It is the position of the defendant that the advances made in 1951 and 1952 were payments on the contract and not loans and therefore properly included in the returns as gross income received for the respective years and, as such, were anticipated future earnings and that since the amount of $31,683.58 received in 1954 was less than 80% of the total gross income received from the book, plaintiffs are not entitled to use of the "spread back" provisions of said § 1302.

With reference to plaintiffs' second contention, the defendant takes the position that the plaintiffs had at all times an unrestricted right to the use of the $6,000 advanced and, therefore, that the provisions of said § 1341(a) have no application.

I. In brief, in order to qualify for the spread back treatment permitted by § 1302, the author must show:

1. That he worked for more than 24 months on the book;

2. He included royalties from the book in his gross income for 1954; and

3. The amount of such royalties includable in 1954 gross income was at least 80% of his aggregate gross income from the book for the years 1954 to 1955, inclusive.

Was the $6,000 advanced to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the contract a loan as claimed by plaintiffs? In order to answer the question I must determine the intention of the parties. Such intention controls the contract's interpretation and when that is ascertained, it is conclusive. Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U.S. 392, 25 L.Ed. 1050. This is the rule in the state of New York where the contract was executed. Ryan v. Ohmer, 2 Cir., 1917, 244 F. 31; Harper v. Hochstim, 2 Cir., 1921, 278 F. 102; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Fox Theatres Corp., 2 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 907. The intention of the parties to a contract is to be determined by their words, interpreted in light of the circumstances. President Suspender Co. v. MacWilliam, 2 Cir., 1916, 238 F. 159; National Publishing Co. v. International Paper Co., 2 Cir., 1920, 269 F. 903.

Business contracts should be construed with business sense as they naturally would be understood by intelligent men of affairs. In re International Match Corp., D.C.N.Y.1937, 20 F.Supp. 420; Erie Railway Co. v. Ohio Public Service Co., 6 Cir., 1932, 62 F.2d 83; E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Claiborne-Reno Co., 8 Cir., 1933, 64 F.2d 224, 89 A.L.R. 238, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 646, 54 S.Ct. 64, 78 L.Ed. 561.

Keeping the foregoing rules in mind, let us examine the salient portions of the contract. It requires the publisher to publish the work at its own expense and to pay to the author certain royalties on the retail price. Furthermore, it requires the publisher to advance to the author the sum of $6,000 against the total earnings of the author under the agreement. The contract requires the publisher to render to the author semiannual statements of sales and permits the publisher, on such statements, to deduct unearned royalties on the sums advanced from any sum then or thereafter due the author from the publisher. The language used is, "amount of royalties advanced."

Paragraph 5, with one exception, deals only with royalties on the retail price of the copies sold. The sole exception is the provision with reference to the payment to the author of $1,000 for editorial expense. At the time the contract was signed in 1951, and at the time the advances were made in 1951 and 1952, royalties had a well-defined legal meaning in general and for tax purposes. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Affiliated Enterprises, 10 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 665. As early as 1934 the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the taxpayer to include royalties in the gross income reported in his return. Revenue Act of 1934, § 119(a) (4).^* This requirement, with minor changes of no significance, continued to be part of the published regulations of the Commissioner to and including 1951, 1952 and 1953. § 29.119-5, 1949 ed., Code of Federal Regulations, reads as follows:

"§ 29.119-5. Rentals and royalties. Gross income from sources within the United States includes rentals or royalties from property located within the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or the privilege of using in the United States, patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property. The income arising from the rental of property, whether tangible or intangible, located within the United States, or from the use of property, whether tangible or intangible, within the United States, is from sources within the United States."

Likewise, royalties are included in the definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(6).

Provisions quite similar, if not identical, to those of § 1302 are contained in § 107(b) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and in effect at the time the advances were made in 1951 and 1952. Therefore, the fact that the advances for those years were made under one Code and the payments in 1954 were made under another is not significant.

Paragraph 20 of the contract distinguishes between "royalties advanced" and the "overpayment of royalties." We are here concerned with royalties advanced. While not controlling here, it is a general rule in the federal and state courts that relevant law and regulations existing at the time a contract is made become part of it and must be read into it just as if they were expressly referred to or...