Appeals of Jordan Marsh Co.
Opinion of the Court
: The only question raised by these appeals is whether the taxpayers were affiliated for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1921. They were affiliated if substantially all of the stock of both was “ owned or controlled by the same interests.” Section 240 (c) of-the-Revenue Act of 1921.
It may be deduced from the findings of fact that the shares of stock of the two taxpayers were owned at the beginning of the-taxable year as follows:
[[Image here]]
The record is not satisfactory as to whether Robert Jordan had any actual control over the stock held by the estate of E. D. Jordan or by his mother or sister. It is in evidence, however, that at an adjourned meeting of the stockholders of Jordan Marsh Co. held on May 5, 1922, Robert Jordan represented himself and the estate of E. D. Jordan; at the same meeting George W. Mitton represented and voted the stock held by the estate of E. J. Mitton and, from his affidavit admitted in evidence, it appears that he habitually voted the stock held by the estate. It is further in evidence that the records of Jordan Marsh Co. show that no dissenting vote has ever been cast by any stockholder, either at an annual meeting or a meeting of the board of directors.
What constitutes ownership or control “ by the same interests ” was discussed in Appeal of Rishell Phonograph Co., 2 B. T. A. 229. We have held that blood relationship is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether the shares of stock in different corporations are owned or controlled by the same interests. Appeal of Wright Cake Co., 2 B. T. A. 58; Appeal of Midland Refining Co., 2 B. T. A. 292; Appeal of Edward Rose Co., 2 B. T. A. 341. In the instant appeal, 90 per cent of the stock of Jordan Marsh Co. and 100 per cent of the stock of the Avon Street Trust was owned by the Jordans and Mittons.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.