Lozoff v. United States, 64-C-14.
Decision Date | 27 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 64-C-14.,64-C-14. |
Parties | Irvin S. LOZOFF and Cecile Lozoff, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Harvey W. Peters, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.
Donald Anderson, Tax Department, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., James B. Brennan, U.S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.
This is a tax refund suit in which the taxpayers seek to recover federal income taxes for the year 1957 in the amount of $21,516.08 with statutory interest thereon.
The case has been submitted to the court for decision on a stipulation of facts with accompanying exhibits and the arguments of counsel, both in written briefs and oral argument. No testimony of witnesses either by deposition or at trial was adduced by the parties.
Plaintiffs, Irvin S. Lozoff and Cecile Lozoff are husband and wife and residents of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs timely filed their joint federal income tax return for the year 1957 with the District Director of Internal Revenue and paid the tax shown as due thereon.
On December 22, 1960, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue duly notified taxpayers that it was determined that there was a $21,516.08 deficiency in their joint individual income tax for the year 1957 and an overpayment of $6595.71 of their joint individual income tax for the year 1958. Thereafter, on April 21, 1961, additional taxes in the amount of $21,516.08 and interest of $3096.12, a total of $24,612.20 were assessed for the year 1957. A credit for previous overpayment of the 1958 tax of $6595.71 tax was allowed, thus stating a net balance due and owing of $18,016.49 which amount was paid by plaintiffs to Internal Revenue Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 26, 1961.
On October 16, 1961, the taxpayers filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a claim for refund in the amount of $21,516.08, together with interest thereon for the year 1957.
From at least March 27, 1946 through October, 1952, plaintiff, Irvin S. Lozoff (hereinafter called Lozoff) and Curtiss Candy Company (hereinafter called Curtiss) were parties to agreements evidenced by a series of letters and negotiated on behalf of Curtiss by the then president of Curtiss, Otto Schnering. Pursuant to these agreements, Lozoff purchased certain merchandise for Curtiss from such companies as Chase Candy Company, Webster Candies, and Zion Candies for resale by Curtiss to its customers. Under the arrangement, Lozoff received a graduated commission from Curtiss based on the dollar-volume purchases made by him. The letters which evidence the contractual arrangements disclose also that Otto Schnering's son, Robert worked with Lozoff in obtaining the products to be purchased and sold by Curtiss.
In January, 1953, during the time the heretofore described business arrangement was in effect, Otto Schnering, president of Curtiss died, and Robert B. Schnering became president of Curtiss. Thereafter, on August 14, 1953, Lozoff entered into a written agreement similar in nature to the prior arrangement covering the 10-year period from August 14, 1953 to August 14, 1963. The agreement was executed by Robert B. Schnering, son of Otto, as president of Curtiss and by Irvin S. Lozoff, doing business as Sales Promotion Company. Curtiss agreed in part as follows:
The agreement also provided:
On the same day, August 14, 1953, Lozoff and Robert Schnering, as an individual, entered into a partnership agreement under the name of Sales Promotion Company for the purpose of promoting sales of commodities of all kinds, purchasing commodities for sale to others acting as sales consultants, engaging in package engineering and a general food brokerage business. The partnership income tax returns for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 disclose that the net income after payment of a salary to Lozoff was divided between the partners equally in 1953, and on the basis of two-thirds to Lozoff and one-third to Robert Schnering in the years 1954 and 1955. The only income reported by the partnership were the commissions received from Curtiss pursuant to the August 14, 1953 agreement. In none of those years did these commissions received by the partnership amount to the $75,000 set forth in the agreement between Curtiss and Sales Promotion Company heretofore described as the minimum brokerage fee to be paid to Lozoff, doing business as Sales Promotion Company. In 1953 (partial year) the commission income was $26,203.32, in 1954, $71,612.75, and in 1955, $28,045.77.
As indicated in a letter of July 25, 1955 from Sales Promotion Company by Irvin S. Lozoff to Robert Schnering as president of Curtiss the commissions due and owing Sales Promotion Company from the inception of the contract were in excess of $100,000. The letter requested a full settlement and accounting by Curtiss no later than August 4, 1955 or the matter would be placed in the hands of an attorney for collection.
At the time this letter was written, Robert B. Schnering, in effect, occupied a dual role. On the one hand, he was president of the company which allegedly owed Sales Promotion Company certain money, and on the other, as an undisclosed partner in the Sales Promotion Company he was a creditor of Curtiss.
Approximately six months later on January 16, 1956, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union Equity Coop. Exch. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...aff'd. (C.A. 4, 1971, 28 A.F.T.R.2d 5751, 71-2 U.S.T.C.par. 9667); David O. Rose, 55 T.C. 28, 32(1970); Lozoff v. United States, 266 F.Supp. 966, 971 (E.D.Wis. 1967), aff'd. 392 F.2d 875 (C.A. 7, 1968). The mere fact that petitioner may have obtained a windfall in prior years does not entit......
-
Realty Loan Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...by the Government. In Nelson Weaver Realty Co., 35 T.C. 937 (1961), revd. 307 F.2d 897 (C.A. 5, 1962), and Lozoff v. United States, 266 F.Supp. 966 (E.D.Wis. 1967), affirmed per curiam 392 F.2d 895 (C.A. 7, 1968), the taxpayers apparently did not contend that they were entitled to use the i......
-
Alfred I. DuPont Testamentary Trust v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...68, 72-73; Fidelity Commercial Co., 55 T.C. 483, 490, affirmed (4th Cir., 28 AFTR2d 5751, 72-1 USTC par. 9667); Lozoff v. United States, 266 F.Supp. 966, 971 (E.D. Wis.), affirmed per curiam 392 F.2d 875 (7th Cir.); Southern Hardwood Traffic Association v. United States, 283 F.Supp. 1013 (W......
-
Rothstein v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...(5th Cir. 1958), affg. 29 T.C. 510 (1957); General Artists Corp. v. Commissioner, 205 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1953); Lozoff v. United States, 266 F. Supp. 966, 970 (E.D. Wis. 1967), affd. per curiam 392 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1968). Petitioners counter that the employment agreements were more than me......