Shoenberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Decision Date | 19 April 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 10079.,10079. |
Citation | 77 F.2d 446 |
Parties | SHOENBERG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James W. Beller, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Lucius A. Buck, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James W. Morris, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before STONE, GARDNER, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to review a redetermination of the income taxes of petitioner for the year 1930. The matter in issue concerning these taxes is the refusal of the Commissioner (affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals) to permit a deduction of $191,886.30 claimed by petitioner to represent a loss occurring in that year through the sale of certain corporate stocks.
There is no dispute as to the facts here involved, though there is disagreement as to some essential inferences to be drawn therefrom. The evidence clearly shows the following: In 1929 and 1930, petitioner purchased "300 shares of Lehman Corporation, 1,000 shares of Texas Corporation, 565 shares of Chase National Bank, 2,352 shares of National Dairy Products, 466 shares of Liquid Carbonic, 1,061 shares of Electric Bond & Share Company, 1,000 shares of Irving Trust Company," for which he had paid a total price of $502,383.17. He owned all of these shares on December 5, 1930. After consultation with an accountant and with the purpose of showing a taxable deduction, he instructed a stock broker, upon the above date, to sell all of these shares on the New York Stock Exchange at current prices. At the same time he instructed the same broker to purchase the same number of shares in the same companies upon the above exchange for the Globe Investment Company. Under the above instructions, on December 5th, the broker sold and bought the shares in the National Dairy Products, Liquid Carbonic, Electric Bond & Share Company, and Irving Trust Company; on December 10th, the shares of the Texas Corporation and Chase National Bank, and on December 22d, the shares in the Lehman Corporation. Eliminating the commissions of the broker, the price at which the stock of petitioner was sold and the price at which the same stock was bought for the Globe Investment Company was exactly the same amount, both as to total ($311,752.50) and also as to items. At various times in January and February, following, and upon dates which narrowly exceeded thirty days after the sale and purchase transactions above, petitioner bought from the Globe Investment Company the shares it had purchased as above, paying therefor the then market price on the day of purchase by him in a total sum of $304,593.87.
The Globe Investment Company was a corporation wherein petitioner owned over 70 per cent. of the capital stock and his mother, a widow, owned the balance. Something more than a year before the above transactions he had been empowered by the directors of the company to act very broadly with reference to buying and selling for the company, and petitioner testified that "since his father's death, nine years previously, he had had the exclusive handling of the affairs of the company, and that it was his practice for years to enter into transactions for the company."
He did not consult with his mother about the above transactions.
He further testified, as follows:
The question to be answered is whether, in view of the entire situation and transactions above set forth, petitioner is entitled to a deduction for a loss sustained by the sale of his stock.
The Revenue Act here involved (Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 791, 26 USCA § 2001 et seq.) as well as earlier and later Revenue Acts permit deductions of losses from taxable net income. It requires such losses to be "realized" by some closed and completed "identifiable event" (United States v. S. S. White Dental Co., 274 U. S. 398, 401, 47 S. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Tax Matters Partner v. USA, Civil Action No. 3:06cv379-HTW-MTP.
...v. United States, 840 F.2d 478, 486 (7th Cir.1988) (to be deductible, a loss must be a “genuine economic loss”); Shoenberg v. Commissioner, 77 F.2d 446, 448 (8th Cir.1935) (to be deductible, a loss must be “actual and real”); ... The Shoenberg case cited in these Notices, a 1935 decision, r......
-
Centex Corp. v. U.S.
...losses. Relying on the ordinary rule that a loss deduction may not be taken in the absence of actual economic loss, see Shoenberg v. Comm'r, 77 F.2d 446 (8th Cir.1935), the government argues that the position taken by the plaintiffs is contrary to longstanding principles of tax law. Thus, t......
-
Principal Life Ins. Co. v. United States
...States, 840 F.2d 478, 486 (7th Cir. 1988) (to be deductible, a loss must be a "genuine economic loss"); Shoenberg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 77 F.2d 446, 448 (8th Cir. 1935), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 586 (1935) (to be deductible, a loss must be "actual and real"). But, the question is - t......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hoehn
...Co., 97 Neb. 215; Stifel v. Brown, 24 Mo.App. 102; Highland Park Indp. School Dist. v. Republic Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1053; Shoenberg v. Comr., 77 F.2d 446; See also 101 A. L. R. 200. (4) The act of the taxpayer whereby money, subject to taxation, is temporarily invested in government securit......
-
The Financial Product Tax Reform Proposals
...in subparagraph (E) and thus are not subject to section 475 treatment. 9 Section 475(b)(1). 10 See, e.g., Shoenberg v. Commissioner, 77 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1935), aff'g 30 B.T.A. 659 (1934) (transactions involving sale and purchase of stock by the taxpayer and a controlled corporation showed......
-
CPAs at risk as government continues to attack abusive tax shelters.
...courts. See ACM Partnership, 157 F3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 US 1017 (1999); Scully, 840 F2d 478 (7th Cir. 1988); Shoenberg, 77 F2d 446 (8th Cir. (4) TD 8876; REG-110311-98. (5) TD 8875; REG-103736-00. (6) TD 8877; REG-103735-00. (7) Notice 2000-15, 2000-1 CB 826. (8) Rev. Rul......