Wilkof v. C. I. R., 79-1217
| Decision Date | 15 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1217,79-1217 |
| Citation | 636 F.2d 1139 |
| Parties | 81-1 USTC P 9155 Edward and Ruth WILKOF, Ervin and Marie Wilkof, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Harvey L. Frutkin, Cavitch, Familo & Durkin, Zolman Cavitch, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners.
M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert Andrews, Helen Buckley, Murray Horwitz, Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Stuart E. Seigel, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal of a decision of the United States Tax Court entered December 14, 1978, reported at 47 T.C.M. 2072 (1978).
Taxpayers Edward and Ervin Wilkof are brothers. Since 1962 they have been co-owners of all the capital stock of Wilkof Structural Steel Corporation (WSS), each owning an equal one-half interest. The brothers have served as officers of WSS from the date of its incorporation in 1953. In 1968 the brothers, along with two cousins, formed a new corporation, TWM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (TWM). Shortly thereafter the shares of the cousins were redeemed and the two brothers became equal fifty per cent shareholders of TWM. TWM was organized for the purpose of developing and manufacturing an innovative axle suspension system for trucks. The brothers served as TWM officers. TWM experienced mechanical and operational difficulties and became involved in patent infringement litigation costing the corporation over $200,000. Because TWM was thinly capitalized the brothers transferred over $400,000 to TWM from the assets of WSS.
The Commissioner determined that the transfer from WSS to TWM was a constructive dividend to the taxpayers, assessing deficiencies in 1973 of $112,910 against Edward Wilkoff and his wife, Ruth, and $115,198 against Ervin Wilkof and his wife, Marie. In a comprehensive memorandum prepared by Judge Howard A. Dawson, Jr., the Tax Court agreed with the Commissioner that the transfer was a constructive dividend.
Reference is made to the opinion of the Tax Court for a detailed recitation of pertinent facts.
Two contentions are presented by the taxpayer on this appeal:
(1) The Tax Court erred in finding that the transfer from WSS to TWM was not a bona fide loan; and
(2) The Tax Court erred in finding that the transfer was a constructive dividend and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indmar Products Co., Inc. v. C.I.R.
...corporate payment was a loan or a dividend depended on corporation's intent whether it expected to be repaid); Wilkof v. Comm'r, 636 F.2d 1139, 1140 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (issue was whether corporate payment was a dividend or a loan; Duberstein cited for "clearly erroneous" scope of r......
-
Zand v. Commissioner
...Some sort of objective factors demonstrating economic reality are required. See Wilkof v. Commissioner [81-1 USTC ¶ 9155], 636 F.2d 1139 (6th Cir. 1981), affg. [Dec. 35,582(M)] T.C. Memo. 1978-496. There are no such factors present here. Accordingly, we hold that, to the extent that commiss......
-
Kean v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...* * * »Fn. ref. omitted.† Our analysis in Schwartz is consistent with those in Cox v. Commissioner, supra, and Wilkof v. Commissioner, 636 F.2d 1139 (CA6 1981), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. 42 Although neither of the latter two cases involved the question of the shareholder's t......
-
Hubert Enters., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Cir.1972), affg. in part, revg. in part on another ground T.C. Memo.1971–145; Wilkof v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1978–496, affd. 636 F.2d 1139 (6th Cir.1981); McLemore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1973–59, affd. 494 F.2d 1350 (6th Cir.1974), and was without regard to any business purpose or be......