Reed Drug Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 28 August 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9073.,9073. |
| Citation | 130 F.2d 288 |
| Parties | REED DRUG CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
L. F. Loux, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
Earl C. Crouter, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
This is a proceeding to review a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals whose order sustained a deficiency in income taxes against the petitioner for the year 1937 in the sum of $4,831.92. Petitioner, the Reed Drug Company, was a Wisconsin corporation organized in 1931 and dissolved before the close of the tax year 1937. During its existence, it operated a chain of retail drug stores in the State of Wisconsin, with its principal office at Cleveland, Ohio. On August 7, 1937, the Reed Drug Company, a Delaware corporation, was organized for the purpose of acquiring all the assets of the petitioner and all the capital stock of several other corporations which were also engaged in the business of operating retail drug stores. In August, 1937, petitioner transferred all of its assets, subject to its liabilities, to the new Delaware corporation in exchange for 22,400 shares of its Class A stock and 73,600 shares of its common stock.
In November 1937, petitioner completely liquidated and distributed pro rata to its stockholders, all the shares of stock it had theretofore received from the Delaware corporation. The transaction between petitioner and the Delaware corporation was treated, both by petitioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as a nontaxable exchange under Section 112(b) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 855.
Petitioner's adjusted net income for the purpose of computing its surtax for the year 1937 was $25,919.64. At the time of the petitioner's liquidation it had an earned undistributed surplus of $54,130.38 and in its income tax return for the calendar year 1937, claimed a "dividends paid credit" equal to its earned surplus. Revenue Act of 1936, ch. 690, 49 Stat. 1648, 26 U.S.C.A. Internal Revenue Acts, § 27(f) page 838.
The Commissioner, on audit and review of petitioner's income tax return for the calendar year 1937, disallowed in its entirety, petitioner's claimed dividends paid credit from which finding petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, which sustained the Commissioner's determination.
The single question presented is whether a corporation which transfers all of its assets, including an earned surplus, to a newly organized corporation in a nontaxable transfer and distributes to its stockholders pro rata the stock received in exchange therefor, may, in computing its taxable net income, legally claim a dividends paid credit under Section 27(f) of the Revenue Act of 1936.
The primary purpose of the undistributed profits surtax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1936, was to stimulate the distribution of corporate dividends so that the tax could be collected from the individual shareholders. Black Motor Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 977.
The general purpose of the statute, when considering the dividends paid credit, should be kept in mind. Interrelation is intended between the allowance of the distribution as a credit to the corporation and taxation of the sum to the receiving stockholders. If the hands of the statute do not gather taxes from the stockholders on the earnings of the corporation, the purpose of the statute is served by withholding from the corporation the dividends paid credit. In other words, the statute contains a corollary, namely credit to the corporation, tax to the stockholders, no tax to the stockholders, no credit to the corporation.
Section 27(f) provides that for the purpose of computing the dividends paid credit in the case of amounts distributed in liquidation, the part of such distribution which is properly chargeable to the earnings or profits accumulated after ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riverside Cement Co. v. Rogan, 2923-Y.
...other circuits. See: Murchison's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir. 1935, 76 F.2d 641; Reed Drug Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1942, 130 F.2d 288, 290: "It is well settled that under the Revenue Statutes upon a non-taxable reorganization the accumulated pr......
-
Putnam v. United States
...not have before. Thereby their proportionate proprietary interest was maintained. Harter v. Helvering, supra; Cf. Reed Drug Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 1942, 130 F.2d 288; Baker v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1936, 80 F.2d 813. Under the Sansome rule, earnings or profits which pass to a successo......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Phipps
...76 F.2d 641; Harter v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 12; Georday Enterprises, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 126 F.2d 384; Reed Drug Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 288; Robinette v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 148 F.2d 513; Putnam v. United States, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 721. See also Coudon v. Tait......
-
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Phipps
...denied, 308 U.S. 576, 60 S. Ct. 91, 84 L.Ed. 482; Georday Enterprises v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 126 F.2d 384; Reed Drug Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 130 F. 2d 288; Putnam v. United States, 1 Cir., 149 F.2d 721; Crossett Western Co. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 155 F.2d 433, certiorari denied, 32......