Ivan Allen Company v. United States

• Decision Date: 03 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-2866.,73-2866.
• Parties: IVAN ALLEN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

493 F.2d 426 (1974)

IVAN ALLEN COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73-2866.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 1974.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., William Mallard, Julian M. Longley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., John F. Murray, Benton Burroughs, Jr., Meyer Rothwacks, Elmer J. Kelsey, William S. Estabrook, III, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.

Kirk M. McAlpin, Herschel M. Bloom, Michael C. Russ, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, SIMPSON and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

INGRAHAM, Circuit Judge:

The issue on this appeal concerns the standard for measuring the amount of a corporation's liquid assets in determining the applicability of the tax imposed upon a corporation for not distributing to its shareholders the earnings and profits that exceed its reasonable business needs.¹ More specifically, we must decide whether securities, which have appreciated substantially in value, should be measured by their original cost to the corporate taxpayer, or at the fair market value less the expense of conversion into cash. The district court held for taxpayer Ivan Allen Company, concluding that liquid assets would be measured at their original cost. Ivan Allen Co. v. United States, 349 F.Supp. 1075 (N.D.Ga., 1972). We do not agree with the district court's disposition of this case and therefore reverse.

The stipulated facts demonstrate that since 1902 Ivan Allen Company, a Georgia corporation, has sold office machinery and supplies in and around Atlanta, Georgia. In the late 1950's or early 1960's the corporate management recognized the great potential in Xerox Corp. securities and invested about $218,180 in them. Ivan Allen obviously made a wise investment because, since the purchase of the securities, their value has increased about ten times the original cost. It is the substantial appreciation of this stock that gives rise to the present controversy.

The district court, recognizing the varying standards adopted by the courts for measuring the amount of a corporation's liquid assets,² concluded that the proper standard was the original cost to the corporation rather than the fair market value. The parties' stipulations, in view of the court's determination, dictated the conclusion that Ivan Allen Co. had not unreasonably accumulated earnings or profits.

The Supreme Court in Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 58 S.Ct. 932, 82 L.Ed. 1346 (1938), stated that, when determining whether a corporation has withheld earnings in excess of reasonable business needs, "depreciation in any of the assets is evidence to be considered . . . ." Id. at 291. Implicit in the National Grocery decision is the Court's concern with the actual financial status of the corporation and its ability to meet business needs from available resources. Liquidation of depreciated assets may not produce adequate funds to meet needs arising in the course of business.

Unlike National Grocery, the liquid assets in the case at hand have appreciated in value rather than depreciated, but the underlying principle is still applicable. Because the liquid assets can be easily converted into cash, the appreciated value of the securities is readily available to meet the business needs of the corporation as they arise. To accurately determine Ivan Allen's ability to meet business needs from its available resources, the appreciated value of the securities must be taken into account. As unrealized depreciation of liquid assets is considered in determining whether a corporation has unreasonably accumulated profits, unrealized appreciation likewise must be considered.

We are supported in this conclusion by our decision in Battelstein Investment Co. v. United States, 442 F.2d 87 (5th Cir., 1971). The taxpayer in Battelstein had sold real estate and received in return a partial initial cash payment and a long term note for the unpaid balance. Holding that the discounted value of the note, although yet unrealized gain, should be considered in determining whether the corporation had unreasonably accumulated profits, Chief Judge Brown stated:

"Looking ahead — as the concept of reasonable accumulating contemplates — Taxpayer, as it surveyed the future at FY 1963\'s end, could not ignore this rich resource. This bluechip note effectually secured by gilt-edged Houston land was then worth not less than the discounted value. Granted that for income tax purposes the deferred payments did not constitute `income\' or `earnings\' for FY 1963 the discounted value of this highly liquid asset had to be reckoned with in weighing foreseeable, planned (i) needs against (ii) available resources at the time of need."

Id. at 89. Like the note in Battelstein, the securities involved in the case at bar are of such a highly liquid character as to be readily available for business needs that might arise. Thus the appreciated value of these securities should be taken into account when determining whether the corporation has accumulated profits in excess of reasonable business needs.

We are not persuaded by taxpayer's argument that our conclusion to take into account the appreciation of the securities is inconsistent with sound business practices. Because of the day to day fluctuation of the stock market, taxpayer argues, the appreciation of the securities is not truly an available resource for meeting business needs. But while it is true that the stock market is highly unpredictable, we still believe that the fair market value is a closer approximation of available resources than simply the historical cost.

Nor do we think that our decision...