Mayer v. Donnelly, 16463.
Decision Date | 13 August 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 16463.,16463. |
Citation | 247 F.2d 322 |
Parties | Mrs. Leonie G. MAYER and Mrs. Leonie G. Mayer, Executrix, (Substituted Plaintiff), Appellants, v. Charles A. DONNELLY, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles D. Marshall, New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Walter Akerman, Jr., Lee A. Jackson, Melva M. Graney, Attys., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Prim B. Smith, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., M. Hepburn Many, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before RIVES, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Augustus F. (Gus) Mayer and his wife, Mrs. Leonie G. Mayer, filed separate income tax returns for the year 1943, reporting as capital gains the profit which, according to them, they had received from the sale of their stock in Gus Mayer Co., Ltd. Additional income taxes were assessed against them on the theory that certain items were not capital gains, but constituted dividends distributed to the taxpayers. The taxpayers paid under protest the increased assessments and, in due course, sued in the district court for refund.
In the district court, the parties stipulated that:
The facts are substantially undisputed, the differences lying only in the legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts.
Augustus F. Mayer was the founder and sole stockholder of Gus Mayer Co., Ltd., which was organized under the laws of Louisiana on January 17, 1900. While the stock was in the name of the husband, it was a part of the Louisiana community of acquets and gains which existed between husband and wife. The principal business of the corporation was the operation of a retail store on Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. The business prospered and the authorized capital stock was increased from $25,000 to $500,000 before 1943. Prior to that year, Mayer became desirous of disposing of the business. In several discussions with his attorney, he was advised to sell only the stock of his corporation; that, otherwise, accumulated earnings might be consumed in taxes.
Beginning in 1941, Weiss Brothers, a partnership composed of Meyar Weiss and his two brothers, leased from Gus Mayer Co., Ltd., and operated the ready-to-wear department in the Canal Street store. On April 14, 1943, Augustus F. Mayer entered into an agreement with Weiss Brothers for the sale of the entire stock of Gus Mayer Co., Ltd., as follows:
In conformity with the contract, Augustus F. Mayer turned over the complete management and operation of the store to Weiss Brothers on April 30, 1943. On that date, after the store closed, he introduced Meyar Weiss to the employees, telling them that he had sold out and from that time on would have nothing further to do with the management of the store. The risk of gain or loss from the operation of the business then passed to Weiss Brothers, the purchasers of the stock, who were on May 1, 1943 and at all times afterward in complete charge of the corporation.
On May 1, 1943, Mayer called at the Canal Street store for the purpose of picking up his mail and turning over to Weiss the keys to the safe, which he had forgotten to deliver the night before. While he was in the store, Weiss delivered to him two checks payable to his order, one being a check of Weiss Brothers for $62,599.41, not in dispute, and the other a check of Gus Mayer Co., Ltd., for $221,547.25, being item (a) of the items in dispute. Weiss in his capacity as the new owner ordered the drawing of the latter check, charging it as a loan from the corporation to Weiss Brothers. The amounts of the two checks were arrived at on the basis of a rough estimate by the parties of the cash and net worth position of the corporation as of April 30, 1943, subject to adjustment by the audit to be thereafter completed. On the same date, May 1, 1943, in order to prevent the bank balance from being reduced to too low a level, Weiss Brothers made a separate deposit of $25,000 of their individual funds to the bank account of Gus Mayer Co., Ltd.
By May 28, 1943, the certified public accountant chosen to ascertain the price under the purchase agreement had substantially completed his work, but had not prepared a formal written statement. He brought his work sheets to the office of Mayer's attorney, where the sale was closed in accordance with those work sheets. The total purchase price of the stock was fixed at $530,212.49, shown to be the net worth of the company at April 30, 1943, adjusted as required by the purchase agreement. At this May 28, 1943 meeting, a part of the purchase money paid to Mayer consisted of a check of Weiss Brothers in the amount of $104,496.92 which for some unexplained reason was back dated to May 1, 1943. That check constitutes item (d) in the list of disputed items. Thereafter, without Mayer's knowledge, Meyar Weiss drew a separate check to Weiss Brothers from Gus Mayer Co., Ltd., for an identical amount, $104,496.92.
Sometime between April 30, 1943 and May 28, 1943, Meyar Weiss discussed with Mayer the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swenson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 81911.
...1083 (1949); Edward R. Bacon Co., a Memorandum Opinion of this Court, affirmed per curiam 158 F.2d 981 (C.A. 9, 1947); Mayer v. Donnelly, 247 F.2d 322 (C.A. 5, 1957); C. A. Sporl & Co., 40 B.T.A. 829 (1939), affd. 118 F.2d 283 (C.A. 5, 1941); Estate of James S. Ogsbury, 28 T.C. 93 (1947); P......
-
Walker v. Commissioner
...States 51-2 USTC ¶ 9484, 193 F. 2d 127 (C.A. 7); Alvin B. Lowe Dec. 27,427, 44 T.C. 363. See also Mayer v. Donnelly 57-2 USTC ¶ 9898, 247 F. 2d 322, 326 (C.A. 5). * * Walker takes the position that the distinction in the two lines of cases is no longer valid since the Fifth Circuit in Casne......
-
Merrill v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...cases wherein the seller retained legal title to property as a security device until the payment of the purchase price. Mayer v. Donnelly, 247 F.2d 322 (C.A. 5, 1957); Commissioner v. Tyng, supra; Commissioner v. Union Pac. R. Co., supra; W. H. Hay, supra. In view of concessions made by the......
-
Pacific Coast Music Jobbers, Inc. v. CIR
...is the payee or title owner of the stock." Rupe Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 266 F.2d at 630. See Mayer v. Donnelly, 5 Cir. 1957, 247 F.2d 322; Northern Trust Co. of Chicago v. United States, 7 Cir. 1951, 193 F.2d 127, cert. denied, 343 U.S. 956, 72 S.Ct. 1051, 96 L.E......