Livernois Trust v. CIR
Decision Date | 12 October 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 20141-20143.,20141-20143. |
Citation | 433 F.2d 879 |
Parties | Theodore B. LIVERNOIS TRUST of May 2, 1958, Theodore B. Livernois, Jr., and Albert L. Grigsby, Jr., Trustees, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Alma G. LIVERNOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Alma G. LIVERNOIS, Petitioner-Cross-Appellee, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Cross-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Michael J. Mehr, Detroit, Mich., for appellants and cross-appellee; Jerry D. Luptak, Evans, Boyer, Luptak & Briggs, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Issie L. Jenkins, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee and cross-appellant; Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, William A. Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and KALBFLEISCH,* District Judge.
These cases present a complicated set of facts and at least one appellate issue of some importance in federal tax law. They were heard by the Tax Court which found for the Commissioner in an opinion containing a detailed statement of the cases and findings of fact and conclusions of law. (T.C. Memo 1969-111). We shall rely upon the Tax Court opinion for the details of the case and recite only those facts (most of which were stipulated) which are directly relevant to our decision.
The basic issue presented by this appeal is whether this record supports the conclusion of the Tax Court that approximately $294,000 of payments made by five corporations owned or controlled by appellant, Theodore B. Livernois Trust, were loans to the Trust, as claimed by the taxpayers, or dividends, as claimed by the Commissioner and as found by the Tax Court.
The Theodore B. Livernois Trust was created May 2, 1958, by Theodore B. Livernois, Sr., — one month before he died from an accidental gunshot wound. Livernois, Sr., conveyed to the Trust substantially all of his assets, including his stock in five corporations in which he was the sole or principal shareholder.1 The Trust instrument provided that Livernois, Sr., would receive the income of the Trust for his lifetime and that on his death, his wife Alma would receive the income, with rights to invade the corpus. On her death the Trust was to terminate with distributions to children and grandchildren. The Trust instrument required the Trust to pay all debts and tax obligations of the settlor's estate.
The Trust instrument provided for four Trustees — Livernois, Sr., Theodore Livernois, Jr., Albert Grigsby, and Ed Degree. During all relevant times Trustees Livernois, Jr., and Albert Grigsby were not only the dominant Trustees, but were also members of the Boards of Directors of all five of the corporations which made payments to the Trust.
After Livernois, Sr.'s, death, his estate filed its tax return. On I.R.S. audit an additional assessment of $61,000 was made. In addition, the I.R.S. made a joint assessment against Theodore Livernois, deceased, and Alma Livernois for $123,000 tax deficiencies (including fraud penalties) for the prior years 1950-1955. Neither Livernois, Sr.'s estate nor the Trust had money to pay these tax liabilities and the I.R.S. threatened to file liens upon the five corporations owned by the Trust. Livernois, Jr., and Grigsby, Trustees of the Trust, then caused the five corporations, of which they were also officers and directors, to make certain payments to meet the Trust obligations just referred to. These payments are summarized in this record as follows:
Name of Corporation 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Totals Supply $22,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 33,500.00 Ohio Lumber 20,333.41 70,000.00 $12,000.00 $46,000.00 148,333.41 Greenfield 1,000.00 14,000.00 23,500.00 $26,501.00 11,000.00 76,001.00 Blue Water 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 31,000.00 Style King 6,000.00 6,000.00 _______ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ TOTALS $22,000.00 $39,833.41 $95,000.00 $50,500.00 $29,501.00 $58,000.00 $294,834.41 ======= ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== =========== A2806
During the years in question, aside from these payments, the Trust had only about $30,000 of income. The earned surplus of the corporations during the years concerned is shown as follows:
Name of Corporation 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Supply $ 59,011.39 $ 52,766.95 $ 52,142.37 $ 63,423.15 $ 51,890.74 Ohio Lumber 477,122.42 391,764.54 369,436.24 352,438.80 332,156.21 Greenfield 111,181.08 97,929.67 100,141.39 103,279.82 109,490.78 Blue Water 86,857.56 105,871.37 119,598.82 128,247.84 139,238.23 Style King 3,495.55 5,150.09 7,398.70 (11,336.16) (25,446.67) A2805
Every payment by the corporations to the Trust was recorded as a loan and an unsecured "demand" note bearing 6% interest was given in exchange. Generally, the notes were entered on the books of the corporations as receivables, but the interest was not. No interest was ever paid. No demand for payment was ever made. In one year $4,000 was repaid, but in that same year $95,000 was transferred from the corporations to the Trust.
Appellants assert that the payments were bona fide loans and that there was a plan for repayment of them through liquidation of some of the Trust assets. As to Trust contentions the Tax Court found:
Essentially the problem here is one of self-dealing between the Trustees of a trust and five corporations which those same Trustees controlled. In order to liquidate tax liabilities of the deceased Theodore B. Livernois, Sr., who is settlor of the Trust, the Trustees occasioned the five corporations to make payments of approximately $294,000. The Trust was completely devoid of funds to meet its liabilities or to contemplate repayment. No schedule of repayments was ever tendered or demanded. No interest was ever paid and the one repayment of $4,000 was offset by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indmar Products Co., Inc. v. C.I.R.
...courts read the law differently. Stated differently, I am fully persuaded that the words of Judge McCree in Livernois Trust v. Commissioner, 433 F.2d 879, 883 (6th Cir.1970), and quoted in the majority opinion in footnote 1, not only reflect wisdom and insight, but also represent good The v......
-
Alterman Foods, Inc. v. U.S.
...some suspicion declarations of intent which have the effect of maximizing the tax benefit of that stockholder. Livernois Trust v. Commissioner, 433 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1970); P. M. Finance Corp. v. Commissioner, supra; Albert Ravano, 26 T.C.M. 793, 799 (1967); Brake & Electric Sales Cor......
-
Bergersen v. Commissioner
...Busch v. Commissioner [84-1 USTC ¶ 9266], 728 F.2d at 949; see also Livernois Trust v. Commissioner [70-2 USTC ¶ 9642], 433 F.2d 879, 883 (6th Cir. 1970), affg. [Dec. 29,602(M)] T.C. Memo. 1969-111; Berthold v. Commissioner [68-2 USTC ¶ 9670], 404 F.2d at 121; cf. United States v. Pomponio ......
-
U.S. v. Pomponio
...is the taxpayer's own intention to repay. See Estate of Taschler v. United States, 440 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1971); Livernois Trust v. Commissioner, 433 F.2d 879 (6th Cir. 1970); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Makransky, 321 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1963); 1 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation......