Olson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4821.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 4821.,4821. |
| Citation | 67 F.2d 726 |
| Parties | OLSON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Louis A. Lecher, of Milwaukee, Wis., and W. W. Spalding, of Washington, D. C. (Mason, Spalding & McAtee, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
Sewall Key and Francis H. Horan, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and E. A. Tonjes, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZ HENRY, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals pursuant to sections 1001 and 1002 of the Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 109, 110. USC Supp. VI, title 26, §§ 641, 642 (26 USCA §§ 1224 and note 1225). That decision affirmed a determination of the Commissioner that there was a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the year 1922 in the sum of $20,557.96.
There is no controversy as to the primary facts involved as they appear in the findings of fact of the Board of Tax Appeals. Petitioner is the president of the American Appraisal Company, a personal service corporation of a close character with its principal office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Its only business is that of making appraisals and valuations of property, and it owns no real estate. On December 31, 1922, it had a capital stock of $300,000, divided into 3,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. On March 13, 1917, its board of directors passed the following resolution:
In accordance with that resolution petitioner's account on the company's books was credited with $333.33 each month for two years ending April 1, 1919. In that month an account designated as O. F. Hiemke, Trustee for F. S. Olson, L. H. Olson, and A. F. Bailey, was opened on the books of the company, and thereafter, $1,000, the sum of the three credits theretofore entered on the respective accounts, was credited to the trustee account each month. This method was continued until the several transactions were completed on February 28, 1922. In order to care for the liability created by the resolution, the company charged the $1,000 to operating expenses each month during the five years. Those amounts were taken and allowed as deductions in the company's income tax returns.
On February 28, 1918, journal entries were made on the books of the company, crediting treasury stock with $12,000 and charging the account of petitioner with $4,000. On April 30, 1919, petitioner's account was charged with $4,000, and the account of the trustee credited with it. At the same time, the trustee's account was charged with that amount, and the capital stock credited with it. On February 28 of each of the years 1920, 1921, and 1922, the account of the trustee was charged with $12,000, the sum of the accounts for the three employees, and the capital stock account was credited with $12,000. On each of the years 1918 to 1922, inclusive, three certificates for 40 shares each were issued and delivered by the company to the trustee for the three respective accounts. Dividends on the stock held by the trustee were either paid to the two Olsons and Bailey or were credited to their accounts and drawn by them at their pleasure.
On or about March 1, 1922, the original stock certificates which had been issued to the trustee were surrendered and a new stock certificate for 200 shares was issued to petitioner. This stock he included in his income tax return for that year at its par value. The respondent increased that amount to $80,000 and asserted the deficiency in controversy.
On petitioner's appeal to the Board, the action of respondent was sustained. The Board in its findings which were promulgated on November 10, 1931, stated that the fair market value of the stock was $250 a share at the time of the transfer to petitioner on March 1, 1922. In the written opinion of the Board which accompanied those findings, however, the market value was stated to be $400, and that value was used in the Board's computation of the deficiency on December 28, 1931. On December 22, 1932, respondent filed in this court a certified copy of an order of the Board, as of December 12, 1932, correcting an error in the findings by ordering the figures and words "$250 per share" deleted and substituting therefor the figures and words "$400 per share." On January 23, 1933, respondent filed a written motion in this court to the effect that the Board's order of December 12, 1932, be incorporated in this record, and that it should be heard at the time the cause was argued on the merits. The motion was presented to this court by the parties at that time.
It is first contended by petitioner that since the Board had definitely found that the stock at the time of the transfer had a fair market value of $250 per share,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennessee, Alabama & G. Ry. Co. v. COMMISSIONER OF INT. R.
...115 F.2d 987, 989; American Textile Woolen Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 68 F.2d 820, 824; Olson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 726, 728. In the instant matter, therefore, we have taken into consideration not only the stipulated facts incorporated in......
-
Kelleher v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8421.
...v. Crescent Leather Co., 1 Cir., 40 F.2d 833, 834; Sheppard & Myers, Inc., v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 45 F.2d 50, 51; Olson v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 726, 728. The board in its opinion determined and "The only question is whether the amount determined by the respondent from the sales o......
-
Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...opinion. 1 As in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 59 F.2d 168; Crowell v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 62 F.2d 51; Olson v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 726; Mason v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 2 As in Bothwell v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 77 F.2d 35; Rossheim v. Commissioner, 3 Cir......
-
International F. Corp. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
...from such a transaction, taxpayer would have a taxable gain. And so here. The order of the Tax Court is affirmed. 1 Cf. Olson v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 726, 729. 2 § 23(a) permits deduction of "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carryi......
-
Barriers to the application of the constructive receipt doctrine.
...USTC [paragraph] 9287 (D.C. Mo. 1987). (14)Treas. Reg. [subsection] 1.451-2(a); Olson v. Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 702 (1930), aff'd, 67 F.2d 726 (7th Cir. 1933); Hamilton National Bank of Chattanooga v. Commissioner, 29 B.T.A. 63 (1933). (15)Lavery v. Commissioner, 158 F.2d 859 (7th Cir. 194......