Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 23 July 1975 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-897. |
Citation | 397 F. Supp. 719 |
Parties | LAFAYETTE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Edwin K. Hunter, Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Carwile & Barsh, Lake Charles, La., for plaintiff.
Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., Steven Shapero, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is a civil action for the refund of deficiency income taxes totaling $92,058.76 for the calendar year 1970. Jurisdiction is present under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a).
The largest part of this tax assessment was based on a determination by the Internal Revenue Service that Lafayette Distributors, Inc. lost its Sub-Chapter S status as a result of the execution of a "voting trust" agreement by rightful shareholders seeking control of the corporation. The remainder of the assessment results from (1) the disallowance of deductions for admission tickets to an area racetrack purchased by plaintiff for its customers and other business associates; (2) the disallowance of a deduction for alleged unreasonable salaries paid to officers-employees; and (3) the disallowance of a deduction for contributions to a qualified pension plan. It was agreed by the parties and accepted by the Court that the Sub-Chapter S issue should be severed and submitted on stipulations and decided first, since its resolution in favor of the taxpayer would moot the other questions.
Essentially, this lawsuit poses the question whether a corporation forfeits its status as an electing small business corporation under 26 U.S.C. § 1371 et seq (Sub-Chapter S) where one or more of its shareholders establish a voting trust.
The following facts are established by stipulation.
Lafayette Distributors, Inc. (the taxpayer) is a Louisiana corporation organized on June 14, 1973. It is in the business of distributing beer in and around Lafayette, Louisiana. On January 24, 1968, pursuant to Section 1372(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayer elected, with the consent of all its shareholders, to be treated as a small business corporation for income tax purposes, and for the calendar year 1968 and 1969, taxpayer was taxed in accordance with the Sub-Chapter S. However, by 1970, two factions had developed among the shareholders, and a struggle erupted for control over taxpayer's board of directors. The factions may be depicted as follows:
I II A) Beulah H. Stansbury 8 1/3 A) Kenneth M. Stansbury 16 2/3 B) Beulah H. Stansbury — B) Paul C. Elmer — usufructuary for Randy Community property — S. and Deborah A. spouse Marie F. Elmer 22 2/9 Stansbury 41 2/3 ______ C) Marie F. Elmer — community property — spouse Paul C. Elmer 11 1/9 ______ 50 Shares 50 Shares
By virtue of LSA-R.S. 12:511 neither faction could vote more than 49 shares and neither faction could obtain control of the taxpayer. As a result, a deadlock ensued.
In July of 1970, the members of the second faction set forth above felt they could obtain effective control over taxpayer by establishing a voting trust, and, thereby, coalescing the fractional shares and giving a voting trustee the power to vote 50 shares rather than the 49 which could be voted individually. Consequently, by the terms of the voting agreement dated July 29, 1970, and in accordance with the applicable Louisiana law, LSA-R.S. 12:78, the 50 shares subject to the voting trust were surrendered to the corporation, cancelled and reissued in a new certificate to the name of "J. Berry Mouton as trustee pursuant to voting trust agreement dated July 29, 1970."2 The trustee thereafter executed and delivered voting trust certificates to the transferors.
On audit of the taxpayer's 1970 small business corporation income tax return (Form 1120-S) the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the taxpayer's Sub-Chapter S election was terminated when the voting trust agreement was entered into, thus making the income of the corporation taxable to the corporation rather than to its shareholders. Accordingly, deficiency income taxes totaling $92,058.76 were charged against the taxpayer for 1970. Taxpayer paid the charged deficiency and filed a Form 843, Claim for Refund, and ultimately, filed this complaint on September 24, 1974.
A corporation that elects under Sub-chapter S is treated as a regular corporation in all respects except for tax purposes. Tax-wise, the effect of an election under Section 1372(a) is to permit the shareholders of the electing corporation to list as deductions on their personal income tax returns losses that the corporation sustained just as though the corporation were a partnership or a proprietorship. The income of the corporation, whether distributed or not to the shareholder, is taxed to him in accordance with his particular income bracket. The Commissioner disallowed the Sub-Chapter S tax treatment on the grounds that the creation of a voting trust rendered the corporation ineligible to qualify as a small business corporation under Sub-Chapter S. Section 1371(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides:
The Commissioner charges that the voting trust was, in effect, a shareholder other than an individual in violation of Section 1371(a)(2).
By enacting the Sub-Chapter S legislation, the intention of Congress was to permit small businesses to select the form of organization desired, without the necessity of taking into account major differences in tax consequences. H. R. 775, S.R.1983, Conference R. 2632, Technical Amendment Act of 1958, P.L. 85-866, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., 3 U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News pp. 4791, 4876-4878 (1958). However, the Congress placed limitations on Sub-Chapter S tax treatment by prescribing eligibility requirements. Congressional reasoning for this action is recapitulated by the District Court in A & N Furniture & Appliance Co. v. United States, 271 F.Supp. 40, 43 (S.D. Ohio 1967):
Examining the issue in this light, it is the contention of the Commissioner that the taxpayer terminated its election under Section 1372(a) to be taxed as a Sub-Chapter S corporation when it issued a certificate representing 50 shares of its stock to the trustee of the voting trust created on July 29, 1970. Hence, the trust itself became a shareholder other than an individual. The Commissioner places his reliance on Treasury Regulations on Income Tax, Sections 1.1371-1(d)(1) and (e), 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.1371-1(d)(1) and (e), which state that a trust, including a voting trust, is not an individual under Section 1371(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, supra. Section 1.1371-1(d)(1) "Number of Shareholders" provides:
(Emphasis ours).
Section 1.1371-1(e) "Shareholders Must be Individuals or Estates" provides:
(Emphasis ours).
The taxpayer argues (1) that the regulations relied upon by the Commissioner are in conflict with the Congressional intent of the Internal Revenue Code of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Pirro
...to include in gross income dividends distributed with respect to the stock of the corporation"); Lafayette Dist., Inc. v. United States, 397 F.Supp. 719, 724 (W.D. La. 1975) ("Traditionally, courts have looked to the beneficial owner in order to ascertain who has the tax liability"); Dannen......
-
Davis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...of the statute is impaired by its own internal inconsistency.” (Fn. ref. omitted.) See also Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. La. 1975). The situation here is not one where the internal inconsistency of the regulations can be resolved one way or the other......
-
American Nurseryman Publ'g Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...had been terminated. 527 F.2d at 629. A different conclusion was reached in two District Court cases. Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. La. 1975); A. & N. Furniture & Appliance Co. v. United States, 271 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Ohio 1967). In those cases, shareh......
-
W & W FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. United States
...stock which was involved, it was merely voting rights which were affected. The same result was reached in Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 397 F.Supp. 719 (W.D.La.1975), the reasoning of which, in part, we today reject insofar as it might suggest, inter alia, the appropriatene......