Miami Beach Bay Shore Co. v. Com'r of Int. Revenue

Decision Date23 June 1943
Docket NumberNo. 10644.,10644.
Citation136 F.2d 408
PartiesMIAMI BEACH BAY SHORE CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John H. Wahl, Jr., and Robert H. Anderson, both of Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Willard H. Pedrick and Sewall Key, Special Assts. to Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Bernard D. Daniels, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Disallowing a deduction of $50,012 claimed by taxpayer in its fiscal year ending August 31, 1937, as a loss on stock in Peninsula Terminal Corporation becoming worthless in that year, the commissioner determined, and the Board of Tax Appeals (now Tax Court) affirmed, a deficiency in excess profits and income taxes for that year of $10,052.41. The commissioner disallowed the loss on the grounds that the stock had become worthless in the prior year, and also that taxpayer had not established its basis in the stock. The Board, passing the second ground without decision, affirmed the commissioner's determination on the ground that taxpayer had failed to overcome the commissioner's finding that the stock became worthless prior to the taxable year.

If the question for determination were whether the stock had, prior to the taxable year, lost the greater part of its value, we should agree readily with the Board. But that is not the question. As long as the stock has any value, either present or potential, the taxpayer may not claim a deduction on account of its value shrinkage. By the same token, the government may not deprive the taxpayer of its right to make the claim when the last vestige of value has disappeared. Plaintiff assumed and by evidence discharged its burden to overthrow the commissioner's findings. It proved by every person having practical knowledge of and connection with the terminal company, including the temporary trustee, that on May 31, 1936, when Terminal filed its petition for section 77B, Bankr. Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, reorganization and thereafter until February 12, 1937, when the stockholders had their meeting and adopted a resolution for liquidation, there was a prospect of reorganizing the company. The February 12th meeting and the passage of the resolution brought this prospect to an end and furnished the identifiable event which definitely dated the loss as occurring within the fiscal year for which taxpayer claimed it. A taxpayer must claim the loss in the year in which it occurs, and the presumption which follows an adverse finding by the commissioner requires it to produce evidence to support its claim to the contrary. This presumption which attended the commissioner's finding here was, however, not a permanent but a temporary presumption which disappeared in the light of the controlling and undisputed fact that throughout the whole of the fiscal year 1936 and until the middle of the fiscal year 1937, when the stockholders by their resolution brought to an end all prospects of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Santa Monica Pictures, LLC, v. Commissioner, Dkt. No. 6163-03.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • May 11, 2005
    ...[63-2 USTC ¶ 9599], 321 F.2d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1963) (quoting Miami Beach Bay Shore Co. v. Commissioner [43-1 USTC ¶ 9498], 136 F.2d 408, 409 (5th Cir. 1943), revg. and remanding an unpublished decision of this Court), revg. on another issue [Dec. 25,374(M)] T.C. Memo. 1962-40; Am. Offshor......
  • Joyce v. Gentsch
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 7, 1944
    ...642, 646. Nor is the date of worthlessness necessarily that on which a petition for reorganization is filed. Miami Beach Bay Shore Co. v. Com'r of Int. Revenue, 5 Cir., 136 F.2d 408. As was said in the Mahler case, supra, 119 F.2d page 872: "In establishing the date of worthlessness, the ta......
  • U.S. v. Davenport
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • December 28, 2005
    ...as the stock has any value whatsoever, either present or potential, a taxpayer may not claim a deduction. Miami Beach Bay Shore v. Commissioner, 136 F.2d 408, 409 (5th Cir.1943). A corporate stock is not worthless until the last vestige of value has disappeared. However, a "mere hope," or a......
  • Powerstein v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • November 16, 2011
    ...worthlessness, we decline to accept that the stock was devoid of all present or potential value. See Miami Beach Bay Shore Co. v. Commissioner, 136 F.2d 408, 409 (5th Cir. 1943) (stock is not worthless until the "last vestige of value hasdisappeared"). Accordingly, we hold that petitioners'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT