Wild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

• Decision Date: 09 January 1933
• Docket Number: No. 53.,53.
• Citation: 62 F.2d 777
• Parties: WILD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

62 F.2d 777 (1933)

WILD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 53.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 9, 1933.

Lawrence A. Baker and Henry Ravenel, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Hayner N. Larson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and John D. Foley, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The question raised by this appeal is whether the earned, but undistributed, income of a member of two investment "syndicates" using contributions of its members to buy, hold and sell securities and land, is taxable. The taxpayer's position is that he need return only what is actually distributed by the "syndicate manager"; the Commissioner's that the syndicate was a partnership, and that its realized profits were taxable income of the members, though retained by the manager for future investment, or eventual distribution. The Board took the Commissioner's view, and the taxpayer appealed. We set out the substance of one agreement; the other is substantially like it. We take that known as the "Brighton Syndicate No. 1."

Sixteen individuals united in a contract, as parties of the first part, with a corporation, as party of the second. The corporation was to be the "manager," though it was also a subscriber. The purpose was to buy and hold shares and bonds of a company which owned real estate. The members promised to pay their subscriptions, which were of unequal amounts, as the manager might call; if they defaulted, the manager might advance the call, which was to be then treated as a loan. These funds the manager was to use to buy, and "manage," the shares and bonds of the realty company, and for whatever else it thought "advisable," putting the securities in its own name, if it chose, pledging them, voting upon them, and acting as shareholder. The syndicate was to last until the manager ended the venture at its pleasure, when it should distribute all the capital and profits, though it might make "partial distribution" earlier. Upon distribution the manager was first to take out its expenses, next repay the contributions to each member with six per cent., and divide the balance as profit, one part to itself and three to the members in proportion to their contributions.

The taxpayer was a contributor to the syndicate, and had got back his principal and interest before 1923; in 1923 and 1925 he received distributions of profits, which he returned as income. The manager did not, however, distribute all the profits made in those years, and the Commissioner assessed the taxpayer on the assumption that these were part of his income. The distribution had not been made with an eye to tax evasion. The taxpayer kept his books on a cash basis.

We have not to decide whether the syndicate was an "association" within section 2 (2) of the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 227), or a trust or fiduciary agency under section 219, as defined by section 200 (2) ("`fiduciary' means a guardian, trustee, * * * or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust or estate"). If it was either, profits not distributed were taxable against the association (section 230), or against the fiduciary (section 219 (a) (3); section 219 (c). All we have to decide is whether it was either a partnership, stricti juries, or such a joint venture as interposed no fiduciary to insulate the owners from direct taxation. It is true that the local law does not control in such a case. Though the syndicate be not a partnership by New York law, it still may be one under the revenue law; the converse was held in Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins, 269 U. S. 110, 46 S. Ct. 48, 70 L. Ed. 183. Nevertheless, a partnership means "an ordinary partnership," as was declared on page 113 of 269 U. S., 46 S. Ct. 49. Sugg v. Hopkins, 11 F.(2d) 517, 520 (C. C. A. 5). However, though the word is to be construed not by local law, but, we suppose, in the light of the common law and the law merchant, the decisions of the local forum may be taken as evidence of the general law, particularly when they are not contrary to anything found elsewhere.

The Uniform Partnership Law (see Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 39) does not help very much. Section 10 (1) defines a partnership as "An association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit," though mere joint ownership is not alone enough, even if profits be shared (section 11 (2). "Business" does indeed include every "trade, occupation or profession" (section 2), but the manager here was primarily only to collect the profits, in spite of his power to sell and reinvest. It does not appear that he used his power, but the case has not been presented on this theory, and we shall assume arguendo that he did and that the syndicate was in "business." If so, the division of profits may prima facie have made the venture a partnership (section 11 (4). Again, while the partners normally have "equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business" (section 40 (5), this is "subject to any agreement between them" (section 40). We need not say that there could not be a partnership in which the whole management was vested in the hands of one partner.

The statute is a codification; so far as not otherwise provided, the common law governs (section 5); it left much still open. The Court of Appeals of New York has at least twice had before it syndicates much like these (Jones v. Gould, 209 N. Y. 419, 103 N. E. 720; Byrnes v. Chase National Bank, 225 App. Div. 102, 232 N. Y. S. 224, affirmed 251 N. Y. 551, 168 N. E. 423), and held that they were not partnerships. The differences between those syndicates and that at bar are of no moment, except that each expressly provided that the subscribers should not be partners, which this does not. That clause may throw some light upon the subscribers' intent, but its absence is not enough to give an opposite color to a plan so nearly the same in all other respects. Indeed, it would be ineffective to prevent a partnership, if...