United States v. Garfunkel
| Decision Date | 28 July 1931 |
| Citation | 52 F.2d 727 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GARFUNKEL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (David Paley, of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Davis, Wagner & Heater, of New York City, for defendants.
The United States filed a bill in equity to collect from the stockholders of a dissolved corporation income taxes owed by the corporation for the years 1919 and 1920. The present motion challenges the sufficiency of the bill as an entirety and in the alternative the sufficiency of that part of it which seeks to recover the 1920 tax.
The bill alleges that on February 1, 1926, the Broadway Bargain House, a New York corporation, was dissolved, and its assets distributed among the defendants as stockholders; nothing being left with which to pay taxes due to the United States. Concerning the 1919 tax, it is stated that on May 15, 1920, the corporation filed a return for the year 1919, which return understated the income for that year, wherefore an additional tax of $941.11 was assessed against the corporation on January 15, 1925; this additional tax remaining unpaid. As for the 1920 tax, the bill charges that a return was filed by the corporation on March 15, 1921, which understated income, that on May 19, 1926, an additional tax of $1,828.76 was duly assessed against the corporation, and that this sum remains unpaid. The relief demanded is that the defendant stockholders be held liable for the taxes, to the extent of the corporate property received by them.
I am of opinion that a good cause of action is stated as to both the 1919 and the 1920 taxes.
1. Stockholders who receive the assets of a dissolved corporation are under duty to discharge unpaid corporate taxes; the measure of their liability being, of course, limited to the value of the assets received. A bill in equity is an appropriate and recognized proceeding to enforce the performance of this duty. These propositions of law cannot be doubted. Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 283 U. S. 589, 51 S. Ct. 608, 75 L. Ed. 1289, decided by the Supreme Court May 25, 1931; United States v. Updike (D. C.) 25 F.(2d) 746, affirmed (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 1; Id., 281 U. S. 489, 50 S. Ct. 367, 74 L. Ed. 984; United States v. McHatton (D. C.) 266 F. 602; Capps Mfg. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 528. Many other authorities might be cited. The remedy of proceeding against the stockholders by way of assessment and distraint, made available by section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 1069), is an additional remedy. Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
The defendants maintain, however, that prior to the maintenance of a suit against them as receiving stockholders judgment for the unpaid taxes must have been recovered against the corporation and execution returned unsatisfied, and that the bill is insufficient for failure to allege the performance of this condition precedent. It is a fact that, despite the dissolution of the corporation, it may still be sued and judgment recovered against it, by virtue of section 105 of the New York Stock Corporation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 59). But it is settled that in a case like the present one judgment against the corporation and return of execution unsatisfied are not required. United States v. Fairall (D. C.) 16 F.(2d) 328; United States v. Pann (D. C.) 23 F.(2d) 714. See, also, Updike v. United States (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 913, at page 918. As pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in the Fairall Case, supra, the requirement of prior judgment and execution against the corporation is not absolute. Impossibility dispenses with the requirement, as does also manifest futility. Here it is alleged that the corporation was stripped of assets and dissolved, so that a judgment against it, while doubtless obtainable, would be utterly worthless.
The defendants also rely upon the New York statute to the effect that "no action shall be brought against a stockholder for any debt of the corporation" until judgment has been recovered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company
...Kuckenberg, 309 F.2d 202, 206 (C.A. 9, 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 909, 83 S.Ct. 1296, 10 L.Ed.2d 411 (1963); United States v. Garfunkel, 52 F.2d 727, 729 (S.D.N.Y., 1931); Drew v. United States, 367 F.2d 828, 831, 177 Ct.Cl. 459, 462 (1966). Similarly, the United States, in collecting ta......
-
Matter of Luftek, Inc.
...such dissolution. Moreover, it is clear that federal courts may obtain jurisdiction over a dissolved corporation. United States v. Garfunkle, 52 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1931); Display Stage Lighting Co. v. Century Lighting, Inc., 41 F.Supp. 937 (S.D.N.Y.1941). It is also clear that a dissolved co......
-
United States v. Russell
...remedies against the taxpayer will dispense with its observance. United States v. Fairall, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 16 F.2d 328; United States v. Garfunkel, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 52 F. 2d 727; Florence McCall, 26 B.T.A. 292. No such situation is presented In the present case there is no allegation that the pl......
-
Leary v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...have been successful did not prevent transferee liability in Lehigh Valley Trust Co., Executor, 34 B.T.A. 528, 534, and United States v. Garfunkel, 52 F.2d 727. Respondent duly presented his claim and relied upon petitioner's representations as executrix that funeral and administration expe......